Prayers - 
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Virtual participation in proceedings commenced (Order, 4 June).
[NB: [V] denotes a Member participating virtually.]

Business before Questions

National Audit Office

The Vice-Chamberlain of the Household reported to the House, That Her Majesty had received its humble Address of 1 July, praying that she should appoint Dame Fiona Reynolds DBE to the office of Chair of the National Audit Office from 10 January 2021, and that she was graciously pleased to comply with the request.

Local Government Boundary Commission for England

The Vice-Chamberlain of the Household reported to the House, That Her Majesty had received its humble Address of 7 September, praying that she should reappoint Professor Colin Mellors OBE as Chair of the Local Government Boundary Commission for England, with effect from 1 January 2021 for the period ending on 31 December 2025, and that she was graciously pleased to comply with the request.

Electoral Commission

The Vice-Chamberlain of the Household reported to the House, That Her Majesty had received its humble address of 7 September praying that she should reappoint Alasdair Morgan as an Electoral Commissioner with effect from 1 October 2020 for the period ending on 30 September 2022, and that she was graciously pleased to comply with the request.

Oral
Answers to
Questions

Transport

The Secretary of State was asked—

Transport Sector: Support and Covid-19 Emergency Funding

Steven Bonnar: What (a) financial and (b) other support he plans to provide to the transport sector in the next six months.

Kate Osborne: What steps the Government are taking to ensure that covid-19 emergency funding support is fair and equitable across transport operators.

Hannah Bardell: What (a) financial and (b) other support he plans to provide to the transport sector in the next six months.

Dave Doogan: What (a) financial and (b) other support he plans to provide to the transport sector in the next six months.

Grant Shapps: The Government continue to provide the support that is necessary to maintain public transport throughout this pandemic. It may be helpful to the House if I let Members know that the Department is expecting to spend between £10.6 billion and £12.6 billion on supporting the transport sector in response to this pandemic.

Steven Bonnar: If there is, as many predict, a disruptive end to the transition period, with long delays and blockages at the EU border and the inevitable financial costs this will bring to hauliers and traders, will the UK Government financially support and compensate these businesses and workers for the costs inflicted on them by this Tory Government’s failure to secure anything bearing any semblance of a deal with the European Union?

Grant Shapps: I have just described the between £10 billion and £12.5 billion of support this Government have provided to the transport sector through covid. The hon. Gentleman talks about what will happen at the end of the transition period. I hope he is reassured to know that I am leaving from this House to go straight to Kent to review the many plans that are very advanced and in place to ensure that the transition is smooth.

Kate Osborne: Covid-19 has resulted in the transport sector being hit hard in the north-east. I hear what the Secretary of State says, but will he commit to providing long-term emergency funding support beyond the end of the financial year to cover the damage caused by restrictions on the economy to prevent major service cuts and job losses in the transport sector in the north-east?

Grant Shapps: I hope the hon. Lady will accept that an enormous amount of money, as revealed today—between £10.5 billion and £12.5 billion—has been put into the transport sector throughout this crisis, and it has taken many different forms. I will say a bit more about, for example, light rail, which I know will be of interest in parts of the north-east, later. But, yes, we will commit to ensure that our transport sector continues to function, and in particular to ensure that key workers through this difficult period are able to continue to travel and able to serve people in this country, particularly NHS and care workers.

Hannah Bardell: A constituent of mine worked as a member of the cabin crew for British Airways out of Edinburgh for over 21 years. They have been forced out of their job and pressured to sign an agreement that has no transparency of the pay breakdown; frankly, they have been totally shafted by BA. Does the Transport Secretary recognise that, on the one hand, there is an urgent need for more financial support for the aviation sector, but on the other, companies such as BA need taking to task, and the fire and rehire Bill of my hon.  Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) would be the perfect way to do that? Would he also commit to meet my constituent and me, so that he can hear at first hand their horrendous experience?

Grant Shapps: I know this is a subject that the whole House has been concerned about. The Select Committee on Transport has spent some time looking into this and has made a number of different comments on the matter. It is the case, of course, that these are extraordinarily difficult times for many businesses in this country, but I do not think that any are more impacted than the aviation sector. The most important thing we can do to help the hon. Member and her constituents is to make sure that the sector gets going again, which is why things such as test and release are very important. But I will certainly ensure that a meeting can take place between the aviation Minister—the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Robert Courts)—and her constituent.

Dave Doogan: The independent coach sector must be unique in the impact that covid has had on its business and the level of support—in other words, not very much—that it has had from Government. What can this Government do to support private enterprises such as JP Minicoaches in Forfar and Black’s of Brechin to weather what has been a disastrous summer followed by a catastrophic winter looming?

Grant Shapps: About 3,000 coach operators in the country employ 40,000 people in businesses worth about £4.5 billion, and it is true that they have been at the forefront of this crisis. They make a lot of their money from tourism, with the remainder coming from things like school runs. I am pleased that through the return to school, the Department for Education made available £70 million, which has assisted in getting some of those often family-run businesses up and running again.
Until we recover from covid, coach operators will not be able to run at full pelt. They have been able to access some of the ground-breaking additional assistance that the Chancellor has made available, but we will continue to work with the Confederation of Passenger Transport, and other Government Departments, to ensure that coach operators are able to continue as best as possible through these difficult times.

Huw Merriman: When it comes to financial support, the railways have had billions, and I am grateful that they continue to run. The Williams review to reform the railways envisaged a “guiding mind” body that would be at arm’s length to the Department for Transport, the train operators and Network Rail, in order to properly oversee and run the railway. There is some concern that that arm’s length body may end up as Network Rail, which sounds a little like the days of the old British Rail. Can the Secretary of State assure me that there will be that independent “guiding mind” body to run and oversee both train and track?

Grant Shapps: I thank my hon. Friend for his work on the Transport Committee, and the close attention that the Committee pays to these subjects. Clearly, the rail network has been going through extraordinary times, with much of the support that I described earlier going to rail. As we move forward, it is important that we do  not end up back with the old British Rail, with bad sandwiches and the rest of it, but at the same time we bring a fragmented system back together. That is what the Williams review aims to do, and in some ways covid has enabled us to accelerate that process. I assure my hon. Friend that the outcome will not be some conglomerate with no real “guiding mind” and all the worst from the past, and we will move forward with the Williams reforms.

Gavin Newlands: Despite failing to deliver the promised sectoral support, the Secretary of State has said time and again that his Government are listening to and working with the aviation sector. How does that tally with the Government ignoring every response to a Treasury consultation on abolishing the airside shopping VAT exemption, which will cost Glasgow and Edinburgh airports combined £10 million-plus? Does he agree that the last thing his Treasury colleagues should be doing is pursuing policies that will cost yet more jobs in that beleaguered sector?

Grant Shapps: The aviation sector has enjoyed a significant amount of support from the public purse. I do not think I have previously drawn this figure to the attention of the House, but the covid corporate financing facility scheme, which is run by the Bank of England, has lent 11% of the money that it has lent to aviation, so there has been a huge amount of money. I am aware of the changes in airport shops to which the hon. Gentleman refers. The Treasury has been consulting on that issue for some time and I will ensure that his comments are reflected back to it.

Gavin Newlands: Let us try a much simpler question, to which I am sure the Secretary of State can give a straightforward and categorical answer. With the news that the black hole known as HS2— the English-only HS2—needs another £800 million ploughed into it, when will the UK Government update the Scottish Government on the timing and amount of Barnett consequentials that should flow from the project, so that those funds can be spent supporting and revitalising transport in Scotland?

Grant Shapps: The Barnett formula is a matter for the Treasury, but at the moment the £800 million is entirely within the budgets. One thing we have done—the Minister of State, Department for Transport ensured that this happened—is to come to the House with six-monthly updates, so that no big surprises suddenly appear in the HS2 budget. I would say in general though that the benefits of HS2 will be felt by the whole United Kingdom. That means, potentially, ultimately, a journey from London to Edinburgh in three hours or so. I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman would welcome that levelling up and connectivity throughout the Union.

Matt Rodda: Our country faces an unprecedented crisis due to the coronavirus, and I pay tribute to transport workers—bus drivers and others—who have risked their safety at this very difficult time. At this difficult and dangerous time, will the Minister explain why the Government are spending £7 million on a pointless rebranding exercise for Highways Agency rather than spending the money protecting lives and saving jobs?

Grant Shapps: We are not.

Tilting Train Services: West Coast Main Line

Michael Fabricant: What plans he has to maintain tilting train services on the west coast main line after the completion of High Speed 2; and if he will make a statement.

Andrew Stephenson: No decisions have been made relating to the types of rolling stock required for the west coast main line after the completion of HS2.

Lindsay Hoyle: Let us head to the Member we miss the most, Michael Fabricant, in Lichfield.

Michael Fabricant: I am grateful for that answer, which was very different from what HS2 told me in a meeting recently. Lichfield is one of over 20 stations along the west coast main line that will not be served by HS2; the nearest station will be half an hour or more away. At the moment, we have the tilting Pendolinos, which are very fast, but HS2 told me that when they are phased out, they will not be replaced by any fast train, and the west coast main line will be used only for slow commuting trains. Can the Minister assure me that HS2 got it wrong at that meeting, and that stations such as Lichfield Trent Valley will still have a fast service down to London once HS2 is completed?

Andrew Stephenson: I am always happy to provide reassurance to my hon. Friend. Fast inter-city trains will continue to run on the west coast main line once HS2 opens. One of the key aims for future service patterns is that all towns or cities that currently have a direct service to London will retain broadly comparable or better services once HS2 is completed.

Tan Dhesi: With reports of further overspends on High Speed 2, it now appears that the Government are abandoning their commitment that the track will connect all the way to Leeds. For all their soundbites and promises of levelling up, once again, the north is being punished by the Government’s failure to get to grips with the financial management of this project. I hope I am wrong, so let us find out. Can the Minister confirm categorically, right here today, that if HS2 is to be delivered, it will be delivered in full, and that it will benefit, among others, the good people of Nottingham, Derby, Sheffield and Leeds?

Andrew Stephenson: As the shadow Minister is well aware, when the Prime Minister gave the go-ahead to HS2 in February this year, he said that we were committed to delivering phase 2b but how phase 2b was delivered would be subject to the integrated rail plan. We have been making significant progress with the integrated rail plan. Sir John Armitt and the National Infrastructure Commission have already published their interim report. We look forward to their further recommendations and to responding to them before Christmas.

Rail Network: Accessibility for Disabled People

Afzal Khan: What steps he is taking to improve accessibility for disabled people using the rail network.

Navendu Mishra: What steps he is taking to improve accessibility for disabled people using the rail network.

Florence Eshalomi: What steps he is taking to improve accessibility for disabled people using the rail network.

Chris Heaton-Harris: The Government have recently made £350 million available to make accessibility improvements at a further 209 stations through the Access for All programme, ramping up provision across the country. We also require the industry to comply with current accessibility standards whenever they install, replace or renew station infrastructure.

Lindsay Hoyle: We are now heading up to Manchester with Afzal Khan—or we hoped to be. I call Navendu Mishra.

Navendu Mishra: Currently, nearly 40% of stations in Britain do not have step-free access. Some upgrades are planned for Davenport and Heaton Chapel stations in my constituency of Stockport, but if updates to stations continue at this rate, our rail network will not be fully accessible until 2070, so what plans does the Minister have to ensure that more trains and platforms are made accessible?

Chris Heaton-Harris: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question, because, as he knows, much of our station infrastructure is Victorian and therefore not accessible to many disabled passengers, and it is a huge shame that it is taking a long time to rectify that. Only around a fifth of stations have step-free access to and between all platforms, although 75% of journeys are through step-free stations, compared with 50% in 2005. However, there is a lot more to do, and we have an ambitious target to get this all sorted as quickly as possible.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call Florence Eshalomi. Not here.

Walking and Cycling Rates

Richard Fuller: What assessment he has made of the steps needed to increase walking and cycling rates.

Chris Heaton-Harris: It is for local authorities to determine prioritising investment in local transport. The Government are taking steps which were outlined in the Prime Minister’s cycling and walking plan, published in July, with a £2 billion budget.

Richard Fuller: The Minister will be aware that areas experiencing the largest growth in new housing are some of those most interested in investment in cycling and walkways. With Central Bedfordshire Council and Bedford Borough Council experiencing some of the highest growth in the country, will the Minister give special consideration to their active travel network plans?

Chris Heaton-Harris: My hon. Friend’s county borders mine and I know it has very ambitious plans, with Bedford Borough Council, to enable it to develop a local cycling and walking infrastructure plan that is positive and engages lots of people. Where possible, we are working with local authorities, but it is for local  authorities within Bedfordshire to work in tandem and consider what sort of approach is appropriate for the locality. Should they wish my Department to offer any extra advice, we will, of course, be happy to do so.

Rail Bridge Upgrades

Kieran Mullan: What steps his Department is taking to support local communities in meeting the cost of upgrades to rail bridges to tackle congestion.

Chris Heaton-Harris: Local authorities in England have benefited from this year’s £1.7 billion transport infrastructure investment fund to repair and improve bridges, as well as the £12 billion local growth fund. Future funding will be subject to the current spending review.

Kieran Mullan: Crewe is proud of its heritage as a historic railway town, but it does create challenges. It is criss-crossed by railway lines, with some very old and narrow bridges that create quite enormous congestion. The cost of replacing them sits outside the ordinary maintenance and repair budget. Will the Minister explain what the process might be to get support for such big capital expenditure and agree to meet me to discuss, for example, replacing Earle Street bridge.

Chris Heaton-Harris: I remember the layout of Crewe very well from walking around it in a by-election a few years ago. As my hon. Friend knows, the future arrival of HS2 in the town provides a unique opportunity for Crewe to undertake a comprehensive review of its transport infrastructure requirements. I encourage my hon. Friend to continue to engage with local partners, agreeing priority projects that will facilitate growth and address the traffic constraints he outlined. They can form part of the discussions he would like to have with us. I would be delighted to meet him, as would the Minister of State, Department for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Andrew Stephenson), who has responsibility for HS2.

Maritime Workers’ Pay Protection

Virginia Crosbie: What steps the Government are taking to ensure that maritime workers receive pay protection equal to other sectors.

Robert Courts: We have extended the national minimum wage to cover all seafarers working domestically in UK territorial waters.

Virginia Crosbie: The maritime industry has submitted a £1 billion bid through the comprehensive spending review to kickstart maritime decarbonisation. That will boost wages and create jobs in coastal communities like Ynys Môn across the UK, and help the UK to lead in green maritime technology. Will the Minister confirm that his Department supports the bid, and that he will commit to meeting me and MPs from coastal communities to discuss this matter in more detail?

Robert Courts: I thank my hon. Friend for her passionate advocacy on behalf of the coastal communities of Ynys Môn. I cannot go into the detail of draft proposals, but I can reassure her that across Government the issue of decarbonisation and the need to achieve net zero is  central. Decarbonising shipping is essential to achieve the target of net zero emissions across the economy by 2050. I would be delighted to meet her and other parliamentary colleagues to discuss that further.

A303 Dualling

Gary Streeter: What plans he has to dual the A303 from Stonehenge to Taunton.

Rachel Maclean: The second road investment strategy, published in March, continues our commitment to create a high-quality connection for the south-west along the A303-A358 corridor.

Gary Streeter: I thank the Minister for her reply. She will know how important the A303 is to us here in the far south-west—it is one of just two arterial roads into this region. Can she confirm that work on delivering the dualling of the A303 from Stonehenge to Taunton will begin on the ground shortly? We have had many promises over the years from various Governments. The people of the far south-west would like to see some action. Can she please confirm that work on dualling this important road will begin in the very near future?

Rachel Maclean: Let me assure my hon. Friend that the Government absolutely recognise the critical importance of the A303 for journeys across his part of the south of England for the people who live there and for the economy of the region. Our second road investment strategy provides the funding for removing the bottleneck at Stonehenge and underlines our commitment to find solutions to the remaining issues along the A303, with the next phases of construction likely to take place after the Stonehenge tunnel is completed.

Covid-19 Quarantine: International Travel

Paul Howell: What steps his Department is taking to reduce the duration of covid-19 quarantine required after international travel.

Flick Drummond: What steps his Department is taking to reduce the duration of covid-19 quarantine required after international travel.

Grant Shapps: The global travel taskforce is considering how to implement a testing regime for international arrivals to reduce self-isolation.

Paul Howell: The restrictions on air travel have had many further consequences, not least for coach operators. When the pandemic first struck, the Government introduced a very generous package for coach operators that saved many businesses and jobs. Now that coach operators such as J&C Coaches in my Sedgefield constituency are back up and running again, the Government’s package has stopped. However, fleet insurance is back to normal, the vehicles all have to be taxed and the drivers are back to work. All the coach operators have to fund these expenses on very basic school contracts. There are no swimming baths, no Beamish, no Hadrian’s wall, no  excursions, no football and no nights out in Darlington, Durham or Newcastle. Will the Secretary of State please encourage his right hon. Friend the Chancellor to find something from somewhere to support this industry that is part of the glue that connects our citizens?

Grant Shapps: I very much understand the pressures that the coach industry in particular is under, as I mentioned in a previous response. It is a fact that those parts of the economy, many of which my hon. Friend described, are not up and functioning right now, so the Government need to do things to provide support to the sector, which we have been doing across all UK businesses—in particular, through the 24 September winter economy plan from the Chancellor—to try to assist, while also recognising, as I know right hon. and hon. Members do across the House, that the Government do not have a magic-wand solution to ensure that business is running at its usual capacity while we are tackling covid. I referred earlier to the 3,000 coach operators. I understand the pressure they are under, and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor and I are very much focused on other ways that we can find to assist the sector.

Flick Drummond: I have heard from a number of constituents in the travel and tourism industry who are very concerned about staying in business over the next six months. I therefore welcome my right hon. Friend’s recent proposal to reduce quarantine to seven days and on the use of testing capacity at major airports such as Heathrow. What can the Government do to help smaller regional airports, such as Southampton, to create their own testing capacity?

Grant Shapps: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That links to the previous question inasmuch as we have to get this economy going if we are going to have to live with coronavirus for quite some time. We need to do that by ensuring that economic activity can continue and that people can continue to travel by coach, covid-safely, and by air. The global travel taskforce is working on the implementation of some really quite complex issues related to, for example—she mentioned testing at airports—whether testing at airports actually provides the solution. As we know, what is required at the moment, according to the best science, is still a period of self-isolation, followed by a test, which could take place either at an airport or perhaps even in a more convenient, more local location. That is what the global travel taskforce is working on with the airports, the travel sector and academics, as well as medical experts, in order to implement exactly that kind of system to assist the entire industry.

Sixth Carbon Budget

Jeff Smith: What discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on including (a) international aviation and (b) shipping emissions in the sixth carbon budget.

Robert Courts: Ministers have regular discussions  about our ambitions for the sixth carbon budget and net zero target.

Jeff Smith: I am pleased to hear it, but what are the results of those discussions? Aviation accounts for 8% of our UK emissions and international flights for 80% of that, so is it not time that the Government actually acted on the recommendation of the Committee on Climate Change and included those emissions in carbon budgets, so that we can face up to our climate responsibilities?

Robert Courts: The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point. Emissions are a global problem and they require a global solution. The UK is working with international partners, and leading with international partners, through organisations such as the International Civil Aviation Organisation and the International Maritime Organisation, and I think that that is the approach we should take.

Kerry McCarthy: Can I get some clarity on the timing of this? In last week’s response to the Committee on Climate Change, the Government said that we would ideally be looking at negotiating a long-term emissions reduction goal for aviation at ICAO in 2022, and that we would be working at the IMO in advance of its revising its strategy for shipping in 2023. That would all be too late to put anything in the sixth carbon budget, particularly if there is insufficient progress at those talks. It would push action into the 2040s. Why are the Government stalling when it is very clear that we need action on international aviation and shipping emissions now?

Robert Courts: It is important to realise that the Government are not stalling. When we look at the leading role that the Government have in both of those organisations and the progress on programmes such as the carbon offsetting scheme for international aviation, we can see that the Government are driving ahead and taking their international partners with them.

International Roll-on Roll-off Ferry Services

Karl Turner: What assessment he has made of the future viability of international roll-on roll-off ferry services from the UK.

Robert Courts: A mid-year financial health assessment of carriers has provided assurances for the continued flow of freight on international roll on, roll off services.

Karl Turner: I thank the Secretary of State and the Minister for their helpful engagement with me over P&O ferries threatening to scrap the Hull to Zeebrugge route. International shipping routes are critical to our economic future yet P&O is threatening to walk away. Does the Minister agree that the time has now come for the company to be told to invest in our area, step up and, instead of paying millions to its Dubai owners, put something into our local economy?

Robert Courts: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for our recent meeting. He is a powerful advocate for his area, its identity and its economic vitality. Although these are commercial decisions, I want to see a commitment from all operators to the UK workforce and the coastal communities for whom these routes are so important.

Mike Kane: We wish my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) well. There was a fire on the Pride of Hull last night, but all hands are safe.
Brexit talks between the Prime Minister and the maritime sector this week have been poorly received and it is a failure of statecraft that the Department has had to award £77 million worth of contracts to secure vital medicine in the event of no deal. To be fair to the Secretary of State—and I am fair to him—at least he awarded these ferry contracts to companies that actually own some ships this time. What undertakings has the Minister pursued to ensure that they will actually employ British seafarers?

Robert Courts: I thank the hon. Gentleman for mentioning the Pride of Hull. I was concerned to hear about the incident, but I am glad to confirm that the ship is safely back at berth. I commend all those who were responsible for responding to the incident. I am relieved that nobody was seriously injured, and I thank the crew for ensuring that everyone on board was safe.
There are, of course, ongoing conversations among all parts of Government to ensure that we have an appropriate response to the end of the EU transition period whatever the result of negotiations.

Covid-19: Transport in Newcastle

Chi Onwurah: What assessment he has made of the effect of the covid-19 outbreak on transport in Newcastle; and what support he is providing to public transport operators in that city.

Andrew Stephenson: The Department is in regular contact with Nexus and Transport North East and has a number of schemes in place to support transport operators at this difficult time.

Chi Onwurah: The Minister will know that many of my constituents, particularly those on low and insecure pay, cannot work from home and are still taking the bus to work, so are still paying significantly more to go a few bus stops across Newcastle than it would to cross the whole of London. The Government talk about levelling up. When is he going to level down bus fares?

Andrew Stephenson: As the hon. Lady will be aware, we are putting huge resources into supporting the bus sector at this time. On 8 August, we announced additional funding of £27.3 million per week to support the bus sector. We are developing a bus strategy and I am sure that fares and the fairness of fares across the country will be part of that strategy.

A27: Worthing to Shoreham

Tim Loughton: What recent progress has been made on tackling congestion on the Worthing to Shoreham section of the A27 in West Sussex.

Rachel Maclean: We are committed to improving this part of the A27 by 2025. We have been discussing options with local councils and will be going to public consultation in due course.

Tim Loughton: Last week, we had the welcome news about the preferred route for the Arundel bypass on the A27 at a likely cost of more than £250 million. Yet just down the road on the A27 in my constituency of Worthing—a town 10 times the size of Arundel—we were allocated just £70 million on the road investment strategy, RIS 1 scheme, back in 2014. All we have seen so far are inadequate plans for tinkering with junctions and improving cycle routes. Will the Minister step in to help progress a proper scheme to deal with the much worse and worsening congestion on the Worthing-Shoreham stretch of the A27 and perhaps come down to visit and sit in a traffic jam with me and see the problem at first hand?

Rachel Maclean: I would be delighted to accept the invitation. However, this would be a matter for my hon. Friend in the other place, Baroness Vere, as this is her portfolio, but I am sure she would also be delighted if her diary allows. To answer my hon. Friend’s question, he is absolutely right to be committed to alleviating congestion. Highways England is making progress on developing options for improvements on that important stretch of road, and it is keen to work with local stakeholders to scope the best options for local communities, at which point it will be ready to look at delivering for the local communities.

Regional and National Transport Links

Dehenna Davison: What steps his Department is taking to improve (a) regional and (b) national transport links.

Darren Henry: What steps his Department is taking to improve (a) regional and (b) national transport links.

Grant Shapps: We are committed to supporting regional and national connectivity, and we recently launched the union connectivity review.

Dehenna Davison: The A66 is a vital route for residents of Barnard Castle and right across the north-east—[Laughter.] This happens every time I say that. Can my right hon. Friend please give me an update on the dualling of the A66, and will he meet me to discuss the issue of the Rokeby junction?

Grant Shapps: A popular question, Mr Speaker. I thought my hon. Friend was going to rise to discuss the A68 and the Toft Hill bypass, on which I know she has campaigned a lot, but the A66 is in the second road investment strategy—the RIS 2—for the period 2020 to 2025. Earlier this year, I launched the preferred route for the A66. That is completing its analysis, and it will then go for a statutory consultation, so it is moving at pace. I can confirm that someone has even set up a Twitter account about the A66, which she might like to follow.

Darren Henry: The HS2 East Midlands hub will be located in Toton in the heart of my constituency. Can my right hon. Friend reaffirm the Government’s commitment to the construction of the eastern leg of HS2 to deliver vital jobs and investment into Broxtowe and the wider region?

Grant Shapps: As the House will know, the eastern leg is called the 2b, and, as the Prime Minister has said from this Dispatch Box, it is not a question of “to be or not to be”—it will be; it will be constructed. I think my hon. Friend will be pleased to hear that, through the integrated rail plan, we will ensure that we can properly connect up the midlands to the north, going up to Leeds on the eastern leg, and do so in a way that now takes into account the many plans that have evolved since HS2 was originally dreamed up 10 or 15 years ago.

No Agreement with the EU: Preparedness

Kenny MacAskill: What recent progress his Department has made on its preparedness in the event that there is no agreement on future relations with the EU after the transition period.

Grant Shapps: Our priority is to ensure that road and air transport continue to operate between the UK and the EU. We are making extensive preparations to ensure good flows and, as I mentioned, I am off to Kent immediately after I finish at the Dispatch Box to update on progress.

Kenny MacAskill: The Republic of Ireland is preparing by creating new port facilities and supporting new direct ferry routes to Europe. Rather than seeking to turn Kent into a car park or sustaining south-east ports that can never materialise, would it not be more appropriate to provide the resources to ensure that new routes and port and ferry facilities can be established both in Scotland and north-east England?

Grant Shapps: I find myself in considerable agreement with the hon. Gentleman. We have a curious situation where an awful lot of goods passage through the so-called short straits from Dover, but that is not by any means the only port in this country. There are dozens, if not hundreds, of ports. He might have missed it, but I recently launched the £200 million port infrastructure fund to further boost the capacity of ports around the country, and that is in addition to the large amount of additional infrastructure spending that has been put in place over the past few years as we have got closer to the end of the transition period.

Rail Connections: North of England

Katherine Fletcher: What steps his Department is taking to improve rail connections in the north of England.

Andrew Stephenson: We announced nearly £600 million of investment in the rail network across the north in July alone. This is part of the £48 billion being spent on rail between 2019 and 2024.

Katherine Fletcher: Leyland has some exciting plans for development with the Government’s towns fund, and an important part of that is the reopening of Midge Hall station, but at the moment we have the nonsense of trains stopping there but passengers not being allowed to get on or off. Will my hon. Friend give every consideration to that as part of the restoring your railway fund?

Andrew Stephenson: That was an excellent Lancastrian question, from an excellent Member of Parliament. For the second round of applications to the restoring your railway ideas fund 51 proposals have been submitted to the expert panel. The recommendations have now been made and we are considering them for funding. We will be announcing the outcome of the second round in the coming weeks.

Covid-19: Rural Bus Routes

Anthony Mangnall: What assessment he has made of the effect of the covid-19 outbreak on rural bus routes.

Andrew Stephenson: The Department is working closely with local authorities and operators to ensure that the bus routes people most rely on continue to run throughout the pandemic.

Anthony Mangnall: The Government have announced a £5 billion package to support buses, including 4,000 energy-efficient buses. Will the Minister look at local routes in my area, such as the 15 and 16 in and around Brixham, to see how we might extend them in the future, given the vital services they provide in a community that has few bus links?

Andrew Stephenson: I understand that my hon. Friend recently met the Minister responsible for buses to discuss this very issue, and I pay tribute to him for the campaigning he does on behalf of his constituents. We are creating a £20 million rural mobility fund to support innovative solutions to transport problems in rural areas, and we will also be taking rural transport into account in the national bus strategy, which we aim to publish by the end of the year.

Transport Funding in London

Karen Buck: What recent discussions he has had with Transport for London on the adequacy of funding for transport provision in London.

Grant Shapps: The Department regularly engages with Transport for London and the Mayor in order to understand the impact of covid-19.

Karen Buck: In the past 48 hours, Conservative Members have already begun campaigning about what they are describing as the Mayor of London’s proposed extension of the congestion charge. Will the Secretary of State be kind enough to confirm to the House today that he wrote to the Mayor in these terms:
“We propose that you maintain the congestion charge at its current level and hours…we also propose the extension of the…congestion charging zone to cover the same area as the Ultra Low Emission Zone and at the same time, October 2021.”?

Grant Shapps: It is important to understand that the Government have already provided funding of £1.6 billion to TfL. The Mayor is now back for another tranche  of funding, which is understandable in part because of covid. However, in other parts, for example through not  having maintained fares with inflation previously, he has left a gap. We have gone to the Mayor with a long list of different things he could do. It is up to him what he does, but I want to make it clear to the House that it is his choice and we are not going to require him to extend the congestion charge anywhere.

Carbon Emissions: Aviation

Christine Jardine: What steps he is taking to reduce carbon emissions in the aviation sector.

Robert Courts: The Government are committed to net-zero aviation. This year, we established the Jet Zero Council to drive delivery of that, by encouraging the development of clean technologies, sustainable aviation fuels and regulatory changes.

Christine Jardine: We all appreciate that the aviation industry is under immense pressure, and we want to see it recover through covid-19, but will the Government ensure that part of the support and encouragement for the aviation industry is tied to those developments of fuels, and that the UK oil and gas industry is also involved in finding alternative fuels?

Robert Courts: I thank the hon. Lady for her question. She is right to say that alternative sustainable aviation fuels are a major part of this. The Government have made £20 million of capital funding available through the future fuels for flight and freight competition, which is for projects that produce low carbon, waste-based fuels, and we will be looking further at what else we can do.

E-scooters

Mark Pawsey: What progress his Department has made in trialling e-scooters.

Rachel Maclean: We have started trials of this innovative new mode of transport, the e-scooter, in 15 areas of the country, with more to start soon. We are thoroughly gathering data on journeys. A lot of very positive feedback is already coming through and we are assessing the wider impacts.

Mark Pawsey: My constituent Mark Rawinski recently bought an e-scooter, and he has been telling me that it is far more affordable than a car or a motorcycle and drawing my attention to how much better it is for the environment. There is a strong case that e-scooters should be classified as personal electric vehicles, in the same way as electric bikes are, as they have similar power and speed. Does the Minister agree?

Rachel Maclean: I am absolutely delighted to hear of the support of my hon. Friend’s constituent for this new, clean, green, convenient and, as he said, much more environmentally friendly mode of transport. We do support active travel and active transport, which is why we are trialling e-scooters and gathering the evidence. The evidence that we gather will inform the decisions that we make about whether to legalise e-scooters in the future. Until then, it is important to say that privately owned e-scooters should not be used on the public roads.

Maritime Safety

Jacob Young: What steps his Department is taking to improve maritime safety.

Robert Courts: My Department is committed to improving maritime safety across the UK, including through the maritime safety action plan.

Jacob Young: Tugboats operate in our port night and day 365 days a year, and the pandemic has not stopped this. I recently went aboard a tugboat on the River Tees and was told of the lengths that the team at Svitzer Teesside goes to to ensure safe tugging operations along the busiest ports on the east coast. However, the crew expressed some concerns that other tug services do not conform to the same safety standards. Will the Minister agree to meet me and representatives from the sector to see how we can level up the safety of our tugs?

Robert Courts: Tug and work boats are critical to the operation and safety of our ports. They ensure that vessels can complete the most dangerous part of their voyages into ports in safety. My hon. Friend has done a great service to those who work on the Tees by bringing this important matter to the House’s attention, and I would welcome the chance to meet him and representatives of the sector in order to discuss this further.

Topical Questions

Lilian Greenwood: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Grant Shapps: Today, I will be joining the great northern conference. I will not only reinforce the Government’s belief in the northern powerhouse, but announce further funding to allow trams to continue to operate, helping people to get to work and NHS staff to get to hospitals. That will go to local authorities and operators in Sheffield, Tyne and Wear, Manchester and Blackpool, which will be among those that will share £35.4 million, which I am announcing today, over the next 12 weeks to keep those essential services running.

Lilian Greenwood: The Government’s 2019 road safety statement once again recognised the evidence that
“restrictions on new novice drivers’ post-test driving, have proved very effective at improving the safety of young drivers.”
The Government promised to commission research to explore the social and economic consequences of introducing a graduated driving licence. Baroness Vere told the Transport Committee that the Government have abandoned work. What does that say about the commitment of the Government to tackling the tragic and avoidable road crashes that claimed the lives of 99 young drivers in 2018?

Grant Shapps: The hon. Lady, who is the former Chair of the Transport Committee, is absolutely right about the number of incidents that take place among young drivers. Let me just declare an interest: I have children who have both started to learn to drive and are about to start to drive. There is a decision for society to make as to whether it wishes to restrict the ability of young people to be able to drive their cars after, for example, 10 o’clock at night to drive back from a library or to be able to work, because graduated driving licences  would restrict those rights—I see the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon) asking about this. She is right to say that we have looked very carefully at this issue and come to the conclusion that there are other ways, through things such as black boxes in cars, that will provide safety without restricting freedom.

Lindsay Hoyle: Topicals are short and punchy. They are not lengthy questions.

Katherine Fletcher: We hope, Mr Speaker.
The M6 is a vital artery for the people of South Ribble and, throughout the pandemic, I know that my right hon. Friend has been working with the arm’s length bodies, such as Highways England, to keep it open, to keep food on our table and to keep business goods going around. Will he give us a bit of an update on the work that he has done during the pandemic to keep these vital arteries flowing?

Grant Shapps: It is incredibly important that those arteries continue to flow, and we have made sure that they do by working with people at Highways England and other bodies to put work in while the networks are being slightly less used.

Jim McMahon: Transport operators have been devastated by covid, and it will take some time for them to recover to strength. The Government have stepped in to underwrite all the revenue risk of rail franchise operators, despite shareholder dividends being in the region of £1.7 billion since 2011. There was a sense that we needed to keep rail going, and that that was the right intervention, but the Government have gone further, paying out operators’ profits on top of that, with even more to come. Yet here in the nation’s capital, our essential transport workers, who are working hard to keep the city going, are routinely deployed to attack the Mayor of London. Why are the Government content to underwrite all revenue risk and bail out foreign Government shareholders, but not back the people of this country?

Grant Shapps: I am slightly confused by that question, because there has not been a single bigger bail-out of any organisation—that I can think of—than the £1.6 billion has already gone to Transport for London, with another £1 billion coming along.

Jim McMahon: Whether it is Sadiq Khan in London or Andy Burnham in Greater Manchester, the Government are systematically drawing political fire at those who dare to speak out. Let us be very clear: it was the Prime Minister, when he left City Hall, who handed back the subsidy and left a £1.1 billion deficit, and it was Sadiq Khan who reduced it by 71%. Will the Government right this wrong and match the intervention for rail franchises across all operations, including TfL, or have they gone from the poll tax to the polling day tax, where they deliberately seek out anybody who dares to vote for a Labour Mayor?

Grant Shapps: That is one of those pre-written questions that does not adjust to the answer. I just explained that more money has gone to the single organisation that the Mayor of London runs than any other organisation that I can think of—certainly in transport.

Steve Double: France has more than 80 domestic aviation routes backed by public service obligations that connect the regions of that country. By contrast, the UK has only four, and they just connect to London. What consideration has the Minister given to backing more domestic routes with PSOs to help connect the regions of our country?

Grant Shapps: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out that other countries certainly have more PSOs. Actually, the European Commission’s website suggests that France’s has 37 PSOs—but none the less, significantly more than this country. We are looking at all this through the regional airport review, and I know that the PSO route from Newquay has been extremely important.

Munira Wilson: In normal times, millions of people from outside London use our transport system here in London, so in order to help keep TfL afloat, does the Secretary of State think it is fair to slap a transport tax on pensioners in Whitton and Hampton in my constituency in order to subsidise commuters from Welwyn and Hatfield in his constituency?

Grant Shapps: First of all, the negotiations are still ongoing, so we need to await their outcome. Secondly, there is nowhere else in the country that gets more concessions than London; constituents in my part of the world and the constituencies of other Members in this House will not be enjoying the same concessions that are available to London. But, as I say, we will need to await the outcome of these discussions.

Neil Parish: I ask my topical question, Mr Speaker.

Rachel Maclean: The Government are committed to creating a high-quality route along the A303—this is the second time it has been mentioned this morning—and the A358 from the A3 to the M5. This will be the south-west strategic route. I very much thank my hon. Friend for his commitment to this route, but consequently the Government have no plans to dual the alternative A303/A30 route between Ilminster and Honiton.

Neil Parish: rose—

Lindsay Hoyle: I call Martyn Day.

Martyn Day: Will the Secretary of State confirm whether, as part of his Government’s power grab from the devolved nations, plans are being developed to construct a 28-mile long tunnel and bridge adjacent  to the UK’s largest offshore arms dump, with over 1 million tonnes of munitions dumped at the bottom of the sea? Does he accept that such a power grab will end up blowing up in his and his Government’s face?

Grant Shapps: The hon. Gentleman may know that we recently launched the Union connectivity review, led by Sir Peter Hendy; we look forward to hearing what he says. The hon. Gentleman may also know that this Government at least are very keen to connect all four parts of the Union together as best as we possibly can, and will look at any good ideas to get that job done.

Sara Britcliffe: I have previously sent a letter highlighting the benefits of a freight terminal in Huncoat, which will support my businesses and attract new, and will really be a step towards levelling up Hyndburn and Haslingden. Will the Minister ensure that the Department considers this idea, and will she meet me to discuss it further?

Rachel Maclean: I would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend, who is a champion of levelling up for her area. I am aware of these proposals. As with other rail freight terminals, we expect the private sector to bring them forward, but we are working together closely on improving connectivity in Hyndburn.

John Spellar: Under the cover of covid, the Department has been pushing councils to bypass normal procedures in order to rush in anti-car road-blocking measures. Two fine examples are on the dual carriageway in Smethwick, Tollhouse Way, and in London on the route to the M40 at Park Lane. These are creating traffic jams, longer journey times, and increasing pollution. When is the Secretary of State going to get a grip on this situation and get our roads moving again?

Rachel Maclean: The right hon. Gentleman is right to highlight our focus on encouraging active travel through a huge investment in cycling and walking that has been welcomed by communities up and down the country. However, we are aware of some schemes, such as the ones he highlights, where better consultation with local communities and businesses would have resulted in better schemes. Local communities should be consulted fully before schemes are implemented.

Matt Vickers: For some time now, I have been pushing to get improvements to Eaglescliffe train station to improve disabled access, to get additional car parking and access from Durham Lane, and to hook it up with our incredible business park. Thanks to the Chancellor, the combined authority and Network Rail, we have the money and we are ready to roll, but patience is not a virtue that I possess. When can we get the shovels in the ground and get the thing going?

Grant Shapps: My hon. Friend has taken me to that station, and I am very keen to see matters progress. I am afraid that we will have to try his patience for just a little bit longer as these things work through the latest round of the Access for All projects.

Helen Hayes: Will the Secretary of State confirm, because it is an important matter of fact that he has so far not acknowledged this morning, that before coronavirus, Transport for London’s debts had been reduced by 71% from the level the Mayor inherited from the Prime Minister, his predecessor? Will he also confirm that the Government’s instruction to people in March to stay at home and not to use public transport resulted in a collapse of more than 90% of Transport for London’s revenue? Will he stop playing politics with London’s transport system and work with the Mayor of London to keep it going?

Grant Shapps: When it comes to playing politics with these issues, I think we can hear where it is all coming from. The simple fact is that we have already funded  £1.6 billion, and we are talking to the Mayor about another large injection of money. I will do this, politics aside, to make sure that we get the best deal for Londoners.

Greg Smith: HS2 Ltd likes to talk about being a good neighbour, but countless daily examples in my constituency, such as its heavy-handed possession of the Calvert Jubilee nature reserve or unannounced HGV movements through the village of Quainton, demonstrate that it is anything but a good neighbour. While I thank the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Andrew Stephenson), for his responsiveness to me on these matters, what steps is the Secretary of State taking to ensure that HS2 Ltd keeps to its commitments and that it faces real consequences if it does not?

Rachel Maclean: The residents of my hon. Friend’s constituency are lucky to have such a dedicated champion. My hon. Friend the Minister of State has recently requested a review of the land and property acquisition process to ensure that people along the route are supported, fairly compensated, and treated with compassion, dignity and respect.

Bim Afolami: As the Minister knows, I am very keen on increasing the number of electric vehicles in my constituency. Will she agree to meet me and the Office for Low Emission Vehicles to consider the possibility of allowing the rapid charging fund to be utilised in towns such as Hitchin in my constituency as well as on the strategic road network?

Rachel Maclean: The Government are providing £500 million through the rapid charging fund over the next five years to support the roll-out of the infrastructure for electric vehicles. It would be a huge pleasure to meet my hon. Friend to discuss this further.

Taiwo Owatemi: My constituents in the more rural parts of Coventry North West often have to contend with bus services that are late and routes that are routinely missed out, made worse by the fact that they have to contend with being unable to board buses due to a lack of capacity. I am proud of the fact that the bus drivers are doing all that they can to ensure that social distancing measures are in place. However, will the Government commit to increasing bus services so that my constituents who use them, many of whom are essential workers, can safely get from one place to another without worrying about being late or being unable to enter the bus?

Rachel Maclean: The Government have increased funding to subsidised bus services in the hon. Lady’s constituency throughout the pandemic, but more than that, we are publishing a national bus strategy to address all these issues. We want to see bus services improved across the country.

Lindsay Hoyle: In order to allow the safe exit of hon. Members participating in this item of business and the safe arrival of those participating in the next, I am suspending the House for three minutes.
Sitting suspended.

Business of the House

Valerie Vaz: Will the Leader of the House please give us the forthcoming business?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The business for the week commencing 2 November will include:
Monday 2 November—General debate on covid-19.
Tuesday 3 November—Remaining stages of the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill.
Wednesday 4 November—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Agriculture Bill, followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill, followed by motion to approve the draft Blood Safety and Quality (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, the draft Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, the draft Human Tissue (Quality and Safety for Human Application) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 and the draft Quality and Safety of Organs Intended for Transplantation (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.
Thursday 5 November—Debate on a motion on coronavirus business interruption loan schemes, followed by general debate on the UK Government’s role in ensuring innovation and equitable access within the covid-19 response. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 6 November—Private Members’ Bills.
The provisional business for the week commencing 9 November will include:
Monday 9 November—Second Reading of the Financial Services Bill.

Valerie Vaz: I thank the Leader of the House for the business next week and for the motion extending proxy voting until 21 March. I do not know whether he has heard the outcome of the Public Health England visit, but I say again that the voting queues are not safe. On Monday, as we were walking round and round, it felt like something out of the book “One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich”. We want remote voting because it is safest for Members and, most importantly, for staff, and it is quickest for staff behind the scenes.
The Leader of the House continually talks about democracy and “Erskine May”, but he is excluding Members from taking part in debate at this really difficult time, because some of them are in tier 3 areas that are in lockdown. Will he please reconsider remote voting? It is just for the pandemic, not for life. He will know that proxy votes do not count as a quorum for private Members’ Bills on Friday. We know that more than 25% of Members have proxy votes. I wonder whether he could consider, perhaps through the usual channels, a fairer way of enabling Members to take part via a proxy, so that those votes are not wasted.
Again, there is no update from the Foreign Secretary on Nazanin, Anousheh and Luke Symons, even though Iran is now in its third lockdown and other countries are having some success.
They came for our public money and wasted it. The Government have already spent £12 billion on Test and Trace, and yet they have accounted for only £4 billion,  with the private sector consultants being paid £7,000 a day and everyone saying that this is a failed Test and Trace programme. The worst thing is that the Care Quality Commission has been told that its inspectors cannot have weekly testing when they go into care homes. That is one of the most important jobs that needs to be done at this time. Could we have a debate on the whole Test and Trace programme? Who is getting the money? Let it be laid bare. It is difficult to get answers from the Government. Even if we table written questions, the responses are taking a long time to come back. The Government need to be accountable for public money during this pandemic.
Then they came for the Labour Mayors. The Government are now dictatorially moving areas from one tier into another. The Mayor of Greater Manchester has brought everybody together. The Conservative leader of Bolton Council, the hon. Member for Bolton West (Chris Green), who has resigned as a Parliamentary Private Secretary, and the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Sir Graham Brady)—a really serious person who has been in the House for a long time and is chair of the 1922 committee—have all said that they want to do the best for their community in Greater Manchester. On Tuesday, in response to the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg), the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care said:
“the cases were shooting up before we took action and then levelled off.”—[Official Report, 20 October 2020; Vol. 682, c. 1032.]
It would be nice to know what figures he is using. If cases are levelling off, why are the Government taking this action?
Let us look at the facts. Liverpool city region has received £44 million; that is £29 per person. Lancashire has received £42 million; that is £28 per person. After three months of restrictions, Greater Manchester was offered—by text—£22 million; that is £8 per head. Will the Government publish the funding formula behind those decisions? The shadow Chancellor, my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), has called it a “phantom” formula.
Then they came for the trade unions. The union learning fund is about to be abolished, at such an important time. It was established in 1988, in the time of Margaret Thatcher. It is one of the most successful learning, training and reskilling projects currently running in British industry. It is value for money. For every £1 invested, there is a return of £12.30, with £7.60 going to the worker taking part and £4.70 going to the employer. The Trades Union Congress said that it contributes £1.4 billion to the economy at a cost of £12 million. Can we have an urgent statement on that decision or a reversal of it?
Yesterday marked the 54th anniversary of the Aberfan disaster when 116 children and 28 adults lost their lives. There was a one-minute silence on Wednesday at 9.15. We must remember them.
Our thoughts are also with my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi), who is in hospital after testing positive for covid-19. We wish her well, as we do my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson), who is an assiduous attender in the Chamber, and all other Members who may not have said that they have got covid.
Yesterday, the deputy leader of the Labour party, despite grieving for her aunt, Anne Irwin, who died of coronavirus last week, came to the Chamber and said:
“I come here wanting the Government…to succeed, because lives literally depend on it.”—[Official Report, 21 October 2020; Vol. 682, c. 1081.]
We say that there is another way: Labour in Wales’s two-week circuit break and £300 million package, just as was done in New Zealand. The Prime Minister of New Zealand memorably said that the tooth fairy was an essential worker, and we congratulate Jacinda Ardern and Labour party on their historic landslide victory. As they in New Zealand, “Mihi.”

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I hope the right hon. Lady will provide a translation for the benefit of Hansard.

Valerie Vaz: Congratulations.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The right hon. Lady kindly translated not only for the benefit of Hansard but for me. I believe the Prime Minister has also congratulated the Prime Minister of New Zealand.
I absolutely align myself with the right hon. Lady’s remarks on the anniversary of Aberfan. I am sure it will be remembered. It was a great tragedy, and it was acted on, with most coal tips removed for safety reasons. I also very much join her in sending best wishes to the hon. Members for City of Chester (Christian Matheson) and for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi). The hon. Lady is an assiduous campaigner, and the work she has done on Primodos is of fundamental importance. I supported her strongly from the Back Benches, and I hope that she will soon be back to resume her effective campaigning and holding Government to account.
On the union learning fund—£1.4 billion on £12 million? That sounds a little bit exaggerated. One can always find experts to come up with some figures if they are asked. With that sort of return, they ought to be in my former profession of investment management rather than in a union learning fund.
As regards the Manchester issue, the Government have provided £60 million of taxpayers’ money, not £22 million. In Lancashire, Liverpool and South Yorkshire, agreement was reached with the Mayors, whereas in Manchester we had this ridiculous fandango with the Mayor pretending he did not know when he had been told by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government hours earlier. It was as if he was trying to go on the stage. It was the most ridiculous prancing performance that one could imagine when he should have been seriously trying to help the people of Manchester, which is what Her Majesty’s Government were doing. I am afraid he was playing party politics of the cheapest and most disagreeable kind, whereas people such as the Mayor of the Liverpool city region, who was clear in his political opinions when he was in this House, were able to work with the Government and put aside party political differences. He has shown himself to be a model of how to behave.
As regards Test and Trace in care homes, 120,000 test kits are made available to care homes on a daily basis, so the Government are doing everything they can to ensure testing in care homes. Of course, it is expensive  to set up a system from scratch—that is not something people should be surprised about—but the system is now testing up to 300,000 people a day from zero earlier in the year, because nobody knew that Test and Trace would be needed. One should recognise that significant achievements have been made. Of course, I accept that it is expensive.
I will, once again, take up the issue of Nazanin, Anousheh and Luke Symons with the Foreign Secretary. I do so every week on the right hon. Lady’s behalf. She is right to carry on raising it. The Government are doing what they can, but obviously there are limits to what the Government can do when dealing with foreign regimes that are undemocratic.
As regards remote voting—we have discussed this on a number of occasions—it is important that MPs are here. MPs have a right to be here. They are essential workers, and all the advice that the Government have given, whether it be in tier 1, 2 or 3, states that people who have essential work to do must carry on doing it. We are in that category. We expect people to teach schoolchildren, and we expect other people in other categories to go to work, so we should do the same. We have, as yet, received no formal response from PHE on Divisions, but they seem to me to be working well and efficiently. We are getting through them in about 15 minutes, which is in line with the time that a Division takes ordinarily. The system is one that I think you came up with, Mr Speaker, and it is working extremely well.

David Johnston: In recent months, a number of constituents have written to me about completing processes online, and how it is assumed that they have a mobile phone that can receive a code, a smartphone on which they can download an app or, indeed, a good enough internet connection that will hold through multiple stages of a process. Given that more and more processes are going that way, may we have a debate about how we can ensure that our constituents are not indirectly excluded from being able to perform everyday tasks?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: My hon. Friend raises a really important point, and I am sure that many Members across the House understand the challenges facing some of our constituents in today’s digital age, especially in the covid-19 era, which is replete with essential smartphone apps and fast-moving data. I assure him that the Government are driving forward access to the digital world, with £5 billion of spending to ensure that the whole UK benefits from world-class broadband infrastructure. Mobile coverage is improving, and 91% of the UK is covered by a 4G signal from at least one operator. Although 91% sounds quite good, I must confess that when I am at home in Somerset and I have no mobile signal, 91% is not good enough, so it needs to get better. As we become more digital, this becomes more pressing.

Lindsay Hoyle: Let us head to the SNP spokesperson in Scotland.

Tommy Sheppard: [Interruption.]

Lindsay Hoyle: You need to switch yourself on, Tommy. Unmute yourself. If the Leader of the House had worked in a textile mill, he would be getting this.

Tommy Sheppard: Thank you, Mr Speaker.
We should, I suppose, be grateful for small mercies, so I welcome the Government’s intention to extend the limited virtual participation and proxy voting until Easter. At least that represents a recognition that normal service will not be resumed any time soon. It is a slightly more mature and considered approach than the histrionics of last week, when the Leader of the House likened MPs to essential service workers.
To be clear, this decision establishes a default position that, although it is better than nothing, hardly represents the optimum or enthusiastic use of technology to deliver democracy. Will the Leader of the House allow a debate at the earliest opportunity after the recess on how we can do it better, which includes switching the remote voting system back on and allowing full virtual participation? I know that he does not support either of those approaches, but he must accept that there is now a majority across the House, including many in his own party, who do so. Let us have an open debate on a Government motion that can be amended by others and, crucially, since individual MPs are affected in different ways, let us have a free vote on the matter.
This week will have brought home to many in northern England what it feels like to be Scottish. Devolved structures are created to allow the voice of people in particular areas to be heard, but if that voice differs from Westminster’s, it is ignored. Moreover, the representatives of the people are then attacked and vilified, just to be sure. I feel much empathy for the people in the great regions of England, but my principal concern is that the Government’s piecemeal approach in England has grave consequences for Scotland. The Barnett formula provides Scotland with a proportion of new public expenditure in England, but what happens when the extra spending is in only 10% or 20% of England? The Barnett formula was not designed for such a situation, and that is why I ask again for a debate on helping the Scottish Government to fight the covid emergency by removing the fiscal and policy constraints that the UK has placed on it.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The hon. Gentleman’s initial silence spoke eloquently for why we do not need a difference in the technology that we use. It showed why it does not actually work and why we are keeping this House sitting primarily in a physical sense, certainly for legislation: so that there can be proper scrutiny. It may be that some people like silence from the hon. Gentleman—most of us enjoy his questions—but that is not how to scrutinise Her Majesty’s Government.
As regards the funding for Scotland, UK taxpayers have contributed £7.2 billion to help Scotland, protecting 779,500 jobs. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) heckles me, saying “We are UK taxpayers.” Does that not prove how beneficial it is to have the United Kingdom? I am hoping that he will now become a Unionist and join our Benches, because it is the United Kingdom that has provided the £7.2 billion and is helping Scotland, England, Wales, Northern Ireland and all the regions of our great nation.

Sir David Amess: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the support given to fairground and showground operators? Their  livelihoods have been devastated by the restrictions placed on them by the coronavirus pandemic, and also by the taxation on red diesel.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am in so much sympathy with my hon. Friend. In normal summers I spend a lot of time at fairgrounds. That is one of the things about having six children; what else is there to do on a Saturday afternoon but try to find a fairground? This year I missed the opportunity to do that or to open the Clutton flower show, which has lots of amusements attached.
My hon. Friend is right to raise the issue. The Chancellor announced in the 2020 Budget that the Government will remove the entitlement to use red diesel from April 2022, except in agriculture, fish farming, rail and non-commercial heating. The policy is designed to ensure that the tax system incentivises users of diesel to improve the energy efficiency of their vehicles and machinery, invest in cleaner alternatives or use less fuel. That is the argument for it, but let us hope that fairgrounds flourish.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee.

Ian Mearns: I thank the Leader of the House for his statement and for guaranteeing time for Tuesday’s very timely and successful debate on Black History Month. Our Committee has been able to fill all the slots available to us in Westminster Hall for the majority of November, and we have two Backbench Business debates scheduled for Thursday 5 November: a debate on a substantive motion on the coronavirus business interruption loan scheme, and a general debate on the UK’s role in ensuring innovation and equitable access in the covid-19 response.
I am also the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for football supporters. Last week, England’s six richest Premier league clubs put forward a disgraceful proposal, Operation Big Picture, to restructure the league. It was laced with bribes to English Football League clubs, many of which are under extreme financial duress, to secure their agreement. Thankfully the proposal was rejected, but the hares are running. Can we have a statement from the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport and a debate in Government time about the future of our national game, which is in the hearts of millions in our country?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The Black History Month debate on Tuesday was indeed a very successful debate, brilliantly wound up by my hon. Friend the Minister for Equalities. I am delighted to hear that Westminster Hall is using its time efficiently, which is very important. It is a reason for getting Westminster Hall back up and running, and another reason why we are here physically: to ensure that the Government can be held to account, not just in the main Chamber.
As regards Operation Big Picture, I must confess that the detailed workings of the football leagues is beyond my remit and realm of knowledge; if the hon. Gentleman had asked about the County championship, I would have been better placed to answer. However, I think he should ask his own Committee for the debate, because it would be very well subscribed and of great interest to many Members.

Greg Knight: Is the Leader of the House aware that over the years we have had several debates about unfair practices by the operators of private car parks, culminating in the passing into law of my private Member’s Bill, the Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019, which he supported? Now that the consultation period for the new code of practice has closed, can the Government avoid the need for further debates by acting quickly to bring the code into force and bring transparency, fairness and justice for motorists when parking?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: My right hon. Friend knows the level of sympathy I have for that cause, which he has championed so effectively. He, like the Conservative party, is a fantastic supporter of motorists generally. He is a model for how we should back motorists and ensure efficient, fair and well-priced parking, which is one of the essential cogs in our local communities, and much of our local economy depends on it. Rogue private parking firms—they are not always private, it has to be said—have made drivers’ lives a misery, with improper fines, harassment, intimidation and over-zealous enforcement. I am very glad that the consultation has started, and I look forward, as my right hon. Friend does, to the implementation of the parking code of conduct, restoring fairness and accountability, and barring rogue parking firms from accessing Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency data. I hope the rogue parking firms are listening, because it is getting that DVLA data that has allowed them to make such a nuisance of themselves.

Jeff Smith: No sector has been harder hit by the pandemic than live music, and research this week says that the UK’s live music sector faces the loss of 170,000 jobs, which is nearly two thirds of the workforce. The culture recovery fund helped to some extent, but we did not help the thousands and thousands of freelancers who make up a big part of the industry. Could we have an urgent statement on what more we can do to help our fantastic, viable—when we are through the pandemic—and world-leading music scene?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The hon. Gentleman referenced the culture recovery fund, which is important, at a total of £1.57 billion. The Arts Council has spent £160 million of taxpayers’ money on an emergency package supporting more than 10,000 organisations and individuals. In addition, £3.36 million has already been allocated to 135 grassroots music venues. Action is being taken, but I completely understand the hon. Gentleman’s point that it is particularly difficult for freelancers in this area.

Pauline Latham: May we have a debate about how many Select Committees we have in Parliament and the use of cross-departmental Committees to scrutinise money spent over a variety of Departments?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Select Committees are ultimately a matter for the House and they have the opportunity to set up cross-cutting Sub-Committees among themselves. For the examination of cross-departmental spending, the Public Accounts Committee plays the crucial, most important role, but other Select Committees can, as I say, collaborate if they wish.

Alistair Carmichael: Yesterday, the Court of Appeal held that Home Office regulations used for the removal of people under immigration rules, which have been used in an estimated 40,000 cases, were unlawful. Why has the Home Secretary not come to the House to make a statement in relation to that judgment, or are the views of the judges at the Court of Appeal to be dismissed as those of a bunch of lefty lawyers?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The Home Secretary has the greatest respect for our judicial processes, as do all members of Her Majesty’s Government. The Home Secretary will be here for oral questions on 9 November. The good news is that the Home Secretary has announced that legislation on this matter will be coming forward, which will no doubt increase the clarity over the immigration law.

Virginia Crosbie: Ahead of COP26 and during the lead-up to the UK hosting the presidency of the G7, does the Leader of the House agree that we have an opportunity and a responsibility to lead the world, and will he agree to a debate titled, “Keeping the lights on while reducing greenhouse gases”?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: My hon. Friend—or, rather, Ynys Môn—leads the world in this respect. The nuclear power plant in her constituency can keep the lights on and the radiators warm in this country for decades for come, and that is a way of providing green energy. The UK is committed to delivering an ambitious and inclusive COP26 in 2021, to reaching net zero emissions domestically by 2050, and to doubling our international climate finance commitment to £11.6 billion from 2021 to 2025—but I think the answer is that where Ynys Môn leads, the United Kingdom and then the world follow.

Alan Brown: My constituent Ewan Cameron was involved in an accident and assaulted. He undertook successful private litigation because, basically, his insurance company did not want to know. It then rebuffed his complaints while withholding information from its own solicitors. The Financial Ombudsman Service found against Ewan, although the complaints handler did make some criticisms of the FOS. The regulator now refuses to engage with me, saying the matter is closed. So can I have a Government statement advising how the regulator is regulated and how I get clarity for Ewan over a saga that has spanned a few years now?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Once again, I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for the way he highlights issues for his constituents and regularly does so at Business questions. Regulators are, ultimately, accountable to this House, either via the Treasury Committee or via a Treasury Minister. I will happily take this matter up with the Minister responsible immediately after Business questions. I think the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has responsibility for this area, but I will certainly take it up with whichever of the Ministers it is.

Felicity Buchan: My council, Kensington and Chelsea, is at the forefront of rolling out electric vehicle car charging. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we need to invest in our electric vehicle infrastructure, so we can phase out diesel and petrol cars more quickly than 2040?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I quite like petrol engines, I must confess, with some old cars. However, the Government have consulted on bringing forward an end to the sale of new petrol and—

Valerie Vaz: Mr Toad!

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I think that is a jolly good heckle, don’t you, Mr Speaker, though for the record, I deny that I model myself on Mr Toad. The policy on petrol and diesel cars will be beneficial, and a consultation is taking place on bringing it forward earlier. My hon. Friend is absolutely right: the key to making this happen will be changes in behaviour driven by the ease with which people are able to charge their cars, and that means having more charging points. There is £500 million over the next five years to support the roll-out of infrastructure for electric vehicles, so taxpayers’ money is being spent in this direction.

Andrew Gwynne: I thank both the Leader of the House and the shadow Leader of the House for their kind words over recent weeks about my tandem skydive for local charity. I would also like to express my gratitude to the brilliant tandem instructor at Black Knights, Lee Rhodes, for safely delivering me back to earth without the need for a Denton and Reddish by-election. I did the jump for Florence, a six-year-old girl with a very rare life-limiting genetic disorder called GM1. Can the Leader of the House help find time for either a statement or a debate on GM1 and other extremely rare genetic conditions to help raise awareness across the House?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: It is very reassuring to see the hon. Gentleman, albeit virtually, all in one piece. I join him in congratulating Black Knights for ensuring that everything happened safely. How inspirational it is of him, as a local constituency MP, to be raising money for such an important cause, GM1. I suggest, initially, that this is very suitable for an Adjournment debate, which would of course receive a ministerial response.

Joy Morrissey: Does the Leader of the House agree that at a time of national crisis it is essential that Parliament continues to conduct its business of holding Government to account and representing our constituents in this place whenever possible? Will he commit to doing all in his power to enable Members of Parliament to continue to come to this place in person to enable us to do our duty?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Free, unhindered attendance at Parliament is one of our most ancient rights, going back to 1340. There is no law and no local lockdown that may prohibit elected Members from attending Parliament. But let us understand what we do in this House. Let us not downgrade our role. We are an essential service. It is crucial that the Government are held to account when extraordinary powers are taken, powers that many of us never thought a Government would be taking in our lifetimes. These must be scrutinised and voted on. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to use the word “duty”, which you personify, Mr Speaker. You have done your duty every day and we should do our duty, too.

Clive Efford: The Government’s view of devolution is that they dictate and local government must obey. The Transport Secretary has written to the  Mayor for London, setting out his plans to expand the congestion charge to the north and south circulars. That excludes any opportunity for my constituents to have a say, because he wants it to be imposed in October 2021. Can we have a debate on devolution so we can speak up for our constituents against this dictatorship from the centre?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The hon. Gentleman overstates his case. He needs to remember that the finances of Transport for London were extremely difficult prior to the coronavirus. The Mayor was not running Transport for London well. He was failing voters in London and running a deficit. Do I want a widespread extension of congestion charging? Does the Prime Minister want that? No. The Prime Minister has said he does not wish to see that because we all know that congestion charging is a means of taxing the motorist. But Transport for London has to be paid for and the Mayor has singularly failed to do that.

Andy Carter: Last week I received a letter signed by eight local primary school headteachers. They are concerned about the state of their local leisure centre in Appleton, which has not been able to reopen since covid. That means that children cannot do PE lessons, at a time when we need to ensure that they are outside and getting lots of exercise. Set against that, Warrington Council has borrowed £1.6 billion to invest in offices in Manchester, supermarkets in Salford and even an energy company—all that while facilities in my constituency are run down and cannot be used. Can we have a debate in Government time to consider how local councils have accessed the Public Works Loans Board to fund reckless commercial investments, rather than using loans to support public facilities such as Broomfields leisure centre in my constituency?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: My hon. Friend raises an important point about the use of borrowing by councils, particularly if they are not providing the services they are meant to provide. I hope that the good people of Warrington have been able to enjoy other leisure facilities in the meantime, possibly even private sector ones. The Government are clear: councils should not borrow more than they need in advance of their own requirements, purely to profit from the investment of the extra sums borrowed. Councils are not speculators and they should not behave as if they are.

Patricia Gibson: A memo that was recently leaked to the Bloomberg news agency revealed the view of senior Tories that the majority of people in Scotland support independence. Will the Leader of the House make a statement to set out why he believes that support for Scottish independence is at record levels? Does he agree with the view in the memo that continuing to dismiss calls for an independence referendum in Scotland is counterproductive?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Six years ago, in the year of our Lord 2014, a referendum was held in Scotland to decide on whether Scotland wished to remain part of the United Kingdom. The people of Scotland, in their wisdom, voted to remain in the United Kingdom and that is why they are benefiting from £7.2 billion of UK taxpayers’ money to help them through the coronavirus crisis. The  benefits of the United Kingdom are enormous. But I would say this, as an Englishman. I think it is absolutely wonderful that we are a single country to which Scotland has contributed enormously over the centuries. We are all kith and kin. We should be so pleased that we are a single country and grateful for the contribution of Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland.

Elliot Colburn: Carshalton and Wallington residents living in New Mill Quarter in Hackbridge recently woke up to find that they had no heating or hot water for the eighth or ninth time in a few short months, thanks to the failings of the local Lib Dem district energy network. The scheme has tied residents into a long contract with no option to switch suppliers, and despite the patchy services and high utility prices, they cannot do anything about it. Can we have a debate about decentralised energy networks and how we can protect consumers such as those living in Hackbridge?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who, every single week, manages to come up with another example of absolute incompetence by Lib Dem councils. Perhaps he should ask the Backbench Business Committee for a more general debate on why the Lib Dems cannot run anything and why it would be better voting Conservative.

John Spellar: Across the country, the hospitality, sports and leisure industries and their millions of workers are facing closures and restrictions, despite very little evidence being provided that they will have any significant impact on the pandemic—especially the 10 pm shutdown. May we have a specific debate, in which the Government can finally provide the basis for such draconian actions and we, the industry and the public can debate them and be clear whether the benefits really justify the costs of these measures? Frankly, they seem to be driven more by the need to be seen to be doing something than by any evidence.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: It is always difficult, when a debate has already been provided, when one is then criticised for not providing quite specific enough a debate. In a broad debate, any range of subjects can be raised relating to the coronavirus crisis. There is a debate later today, and one on the Monday when we get back, when these points can be raised. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care has made regular statements to the House, where he can be questioned on these issues. Therefore, I think parliamentary time has been provided, while recognising the real difficulty that people in the leisure and hospitality sectors find themselves in. It is very tough for them, but the Chancellor is making a statement later, and I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members will want to listen to that with care.

Sara Britcliffe: Town centres such as Accrington and Haslingden are struggling. We have some of the most amazing businesses, such as the Unscripted boutique, D. T. Law and the Lancashire Tea Room. Will the Leader of the House agree to a debate on high street and town centre regeneration so that we can discuss how we can support amazing businesses such as mine in Hyndburn and Haslingden?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: My hon. Friend is right to raise the issue of support for town centres. There is the £3.6 billion town centres fund, which is making really important efforts to help rejuvenate town centres. Town centres are important as community centres as much as for the economic activity they provide, but their economic activity is crucial. I cannot provide a specific time for a debate, but I think it is a good issue for a Backbench Business debate.

Emma Hardy: I am sure, Mr Speaker, that you do not need me to tell you that rugby league clubs are the lifeblood of cities such as Hull. Yesterday I spoke to the owner of Hull FC, who explained the serious short-term challenges the club faces. May we have a Government statement to scrutinise the evidence behind the decision to close all open-air stadiums and what support can be given to rugby league clubs if the ban remains until April 2021?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: As I have said before in the House, the Government are keen to look at ways of allowing spectators to go back in safely and will consider proposals as they are made. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport will be here to answer oral questions shortly after we are back, on 5 November, and that will be a good opportunity to raise this with him.

Philip Hollobone: We all need a little light diversion in these grim times, so may we have a statement in support of the annual world puddle jumping championships, which take place at the much-loved Wicksteed Park in Kettering? This year, due to the pandemic, the championships are going virtual and children across the land are being encouraged to send in video footage of their jumps, which will be judged on the basis of height of jump, enthusiasm, distance of splash, and the amount of mud covering the participant. Is this not just the sort of tonic we need in these difficult days?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: This is a brilliant idea, and who cannot recall the episode of “Peppa Pig” where Peppa decides to go and jump in a muddy puddle, that being her favourite activity? She is joined by her brother, George, by her father and her mother, and I have a feeling even the grandparents join in, and they all get covered in mud. I cannot promise my hon. Friend that that will be what the Rees-Mogg household are doing on world puddle jumping day, but certainly a number of my children will enjoy doing it very much, and he is to be commended for ensuring that world puddle jumping day has a wider audience.

Lindsay Hoyle: And we mustn’t forget the Vicar of Dibley.

Chris Bryant: I have “follow me, follow, down to the hollow” ringing through my head now.
May I ask, I am afraid, about the Select Committee on Standards? As the Leader of the House knows, the Standards Committee is meant to have a majority of lay members who are able to vote. We have a lot of very important businesses; we have already done 11 reports in this Parliament and we have a major review of the code of conduct going on. We need a full quota of lay  members. I am really grateful to the Leader of the House for tabling the single motion, which is down on the remaining orders, that would allow for Melanie Carter and Michael Maguire to be added to the Committee. I know that Standing Orders say we have to have a one-hour debate. Can I do a deal with the Leader of the House? If I promise that I will not speak in that debate and he promises that he will just move the motion very quickly, we could have a very short debate, and maybe we could get that done very quickly so that the Standards Committee can get on with its job.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: When Standing Orders provide for a one-hour debate, it is only right that that time is properly provided, should Members wish to use it, but the hon. Gentleman will be aware that there are concerns over the way the recruitment process was carried out. There is disquiet in certain quarters with regard to that, and that is why the motion has not at this stage been brought forward, though it is under discussion.

Ian Liddell-Grainger: My right hon. Friend will recall the treaty of Wedmore in Somerset, by which, as he knows, the Vikings were finally kicked out of Wessex, and perhaps there are lessons there for us. Today, we have a counterfeit county council pretending to represent the whole of Somerset, and it wants to become yet another faceless unitary authority. It reminds me of the Viking army of Ivar the Boneless—all brawn and no legs. Thankfully, the Government have promised to look at every option, including the excellent ideas—and they are excellent—from Somerset district councils, which capture the true spirit of King Alfred. The districts want to bring our county together, not divide it still more, and I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State has invited all Somerset councils, including our two existing unitaries, to submit ideas. Can we please have a debate on these matters soon because this county council, this narrow-minded Ivar the Boneless, wants to destroy our history? King Alfred must prevail.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Ivar the Boneless was given his marching orders actually from Nottingham by Alfred the Great with his brother Aethelred I—not to be confused with the unready one who comes a little bit later. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Ivar the Boneless must be moved out of Wessex—he ended up disappearing from history, as it happens, and is thought to have died in either 872 or 873. I have so much sympathy with what my hon. Friend is saying. Somerset is a great, single, individual county. It always seemed to me to be rubbing the salt in the wound of the 1974 local government reforms when Somerset County Council put up signs saying “Welcome to Somerset” when people were just going into its administrative area and not entering the great county.

Kevin Brennan: Can we have a debate on the proposition that every child matters? I notice that this morning the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Caroline Ansell), who was a Parliamentary Private Secretary, has resigned from the Government over yesterday’s debate and vote, no doubt because the tone of some of the speeches seemed to undermine that proposition and just wanted to attack the footballer Marcus Rashford who, following what happened said:
“Put aside all the noise, the digs, the party politics and let’s focus on the reality. A significant number of children are going to bed tonight not only hungry but feeling like they do not matter because of comments that have been made today.”
Every child matters—can we not all agree on that proposition?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Of course we can agree that every child matters. It is a fundamental view of all civilised people. It is not a party political issue. It is not a Government/Opposition matter. The debate yesterday was very clear: it is about how we look after people, not whether we look after people. I would point out that there are 100,000 fewer children in absolute poverty than there were in 2010. There are 780,000 fewer children growing up in a workless household. An additional £1 billion childcare fund giving parents the support and freedom that they need is being established, so the Government are taking great steps to support every child and ensure that every child has the best start in life.

Jacob Young: I represent many fantastic communities in Redcar and Cleveland, but in Redcar town itself we have a specific problem with car crime. Every day we see images on social media of young lads in the middle of the night shining torches in car windows to look for valuables, and all too often the windows get smashed. I have raised this issue with my local chief constable, Cleveland’s acting police and crime commissioner, the Secretary of State for the Home Office and, now, the Leader of the House. Can we have a debate in Government time on how we can best tackle this recent surge in car crime, and does my right hon. Friend agree that the police and the courts should consider using all the mechanisms at their disposal to root out the yobs who are terrorising my communities?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this issue and to encourage the police to use all the powers they have to root out car crime, which is a particularly unpleasant form of crime. It must be very difficult for my hon. Friend’s constituents who are suffering in this way. The Government are recruiting 20,000 extra police officers, and several thousand have already been recruited. That will ensure a bigger police presence for communities across the country, including in Cleveland. My hon. Friend will be able to raise these questions further with the Home Secretary, but in this House there are many ways of raising issues to up the political pressure—Adjournment debates, Backbench Business debates, urgent questions—and I am sure that with your advice and wise counsel, Mr Speaker, my hon. Friend will find all the ways he can use to keep this issue at the front of public attention.

Lisa Cameron: National Mentoring Day is on 27 October, and the all-party parliamentary group on mentoring, which I chair, is, in conjunction with the Diana Award, absolutely delighted to have over 100 MPs from across this Chamber signed up to mentor a young person next week. I had hoped the Prime Minister might sign up, but I hope he will tune in this morning, and perhaps have a look at this again and lend his support. May we have a statement or debate on the importance of mentoring in building resilience in young people, alongside the long-awaited mental health of children strategy?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I congratulate the hon. Lady on what she is doing on mentoring. It is a way of giving young people a real chance to get ahead in their lives and make their mark. I am delighted to hear that 100 MPs are supporting her initiative. I will ensure that a message goes after this to No. 10 Downing Street so that the Prime Minister is aware of her request, although I cannot promise what the answer will be. I would really thank her for what she is doing. It is so important and such an important initiative.

Lindsay Hoyle: We now go to Harrow airways and, with permission to land, Bob Blackman.

Bob Blackman: Thank you, ground control.
Harrow Council is currently considering three very controversial planning applications for building high-density, multi-storey flats on Stanmore, Canons Park and Rayners Lane station car parks. These have received thousands of objections from residents all over Harrow who are concerned about the loss of car parking and the imposition of these high-rise developments. Harrow Council planning committee is likely to consider the Canons Park station application in December and the Stanmore one in January, but for some strange reason, Rayners Lane is going to be delayed till June. Stanmore and Canons Park are both in Conservative-held wards, and the Labour-run council has decided to postpone the Rayners Lane application until after the mayoral elections next year. Could we have a debate in Government time on political interference in the planning process, which reeks of corruption?

Lindsay Hoyle: I think that is a bit too long a question.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: My hon. Friend raises a point that is deeply concerning and he raises a very serious charge. Politically motivated interference in matters such as planning is improper, and I will ensure that the Housing Secretary is made aware of this. It is, of course, a matter for Harrow Council, but once the internal process has been exhausted, it may be possible to involve the local government ombudsman. Local authorities have to abide by a code of conduct, and to make planning decisions for electoral gain is thoroughly improper.

Emma Lewell-Buck: My constituent Mr Latimer has for nearly two decades campaigned to halt the flow of illegal sewage dumping on to Seaburn beach behind his home. A ruling eight years ago stated that the levels of sewage breached legal guidelines, and new evidence shows that to this day dumping levels continue to be breached. This Government and the Environment Agency are ignoring him, the Whitburn Neighbourhood Forum and my pleas to try to sort this out. Why is this, and when can we have an urgent debate on this matter?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: This is a matter of great concern. It was raised last week by my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mrs Elphicke), who represents Dover and Deal. There are legal requirements on water companies to ensure that sewage is not dumped illegally. This must be taken up with Ofwat, and enforcement action must be taken if this is happening. I will ensure that the concerns the hon. Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck)  has raised are passed on. I cannot think of anything more disagreeable for her residents than to have to be suffering from this.

Shaun Bailey: I can take the rough and tumble of this place as much as anyone, but some of the language we heard yesterday was abhorrent, particularly the use of the word “scum”. Now, I am sorry, but I got a phone call at half-11 last night from my mum saying that she had had people using that type of wording down the phone at her because she is my mother, and today my staff members have been called with that type of abhorrent abuse. It is absolutely not on. Can my right hon. Friend give us a debate in Government time on the standard of conduct we have in this Chamber, because the language we use impacts on people beyond us, and perhaps he will bring the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) here to apologise not just to us, but to my mum, who has had to abhor that today?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: My hon. Friend is right to say this. His mother should be enormously proud of his being a Member of this House. There is no greater service one can give to one’s fellow Britons than by being a Member of Parliament. It is the highest honour that one can have and the greatest service that one can do. I am sure his mother was aware of that before I said it, but I hope he will ensure that she does know that is a high position that he holds and that it is one of honourability.
The Chairman of Ways and Means dealt with the issue yesterday in the way we would expect from the Chair and dealt with it extremely clearly, but I remind Members of “Erskine May” paragraph 21.21:
“Good temper and moderation are the characteristics of parliamentary language.”
Inevitably when discussing heated political matters, people state their case forcefully, but they must do so politely.

Feryal Clark: The Government have used negotiations with Transport for London to impose longer operational hours, the congestion charge and the removal of freedom passes and under-18 passes for transport. Only this week, leaked Government plans have shown their intention to expand the congestion charge to the north and south circulars and to impose above-inflation fare rises. Instead of levelling unfounded and unfair criticism at the Mayor of London—criticism that has not been levelled at private firms that the Government have bailed out during the pandemic—can we have a debate in Government time on these leaked eye-watering proposals that are likely to impact 4 million Londoners, including my constituents in Enfield North?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The Mayor of London has always done everything he possibly can to make life miserable for the motorist, and no doubt he wishes to continue to do so. He is no advocate of the motorist. The Conservative Government on the other hand are, with the largest road-building programme in decades and a real commitment to making motoring easier and helping people drive in the way that they wish to do. The fact that Transport for London has run out of money is because it was running out of money before the coronavirus, because it was badly managed by an incompetent Mayor.

Selaine Saxby: While it is important that our workplace is covid-secure and that we lead by example in Parliament, can my right hon. Friend advise how we avoid overstepping into a territory of impractical, unhealthy working conditions that overstretch even Government guidance and instead have an effective, safe, yet sensible working environment for colleagues and staff across the House? What is the process for reversing the unpopular measures that have already been employed, as and when we eventually emerged from this pandemic?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because she gives me the opportunity to pay tribute to the House authorities, obviously to you, Mr Speaker, and to Marianne Cwynarski. Between you, you have done amazing work to ensure that the House’s proceedings are carried on in a covid-secure way and that the staff of the House and of Members are kept safe in the House of Commons while we have been following Public Health England’s guidelines. My hon. Friend is right to say that we provide an essential service and we must be here, and that the restrictions must be lifted as soon as they can be. They are all temporary. I look forward to this Chamber being full and bustling once again, but that will have to come when it is safe to do so. I look forward to not having to wear a face mask, but again that must be done when it is safe to do so. We must lead by example to the country at large, both in our dutifulness and in our adherence to the rules.

Alex Davies-Jones: This Sunday, our clocks will go back one hour as part of daylight saving time. According to a recent Government report, 59% of the British population would rather remain on summer time, and I think we can all agree that the last thing our country needs is another hour of 2020. With that in mind, will the Leader of the House agree to a debate in Government time to discuss the practice of moving clocks backwards, so that we can follow the EU in scrapping this outdated and unnecessary practice?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Until the hon. Lady said, “follow the EU”, I might have been tempted, but I am afraid that I always enjoy the extra hour in bed. It is such a luxury to find that one gets the clocks going back to Greenwich mean time and has that extra hour’s sleep. More importantly, people in Scotland in particular would have very late mornings if we did not change the clocks. This was debated in 2010 and 2011, and it has been considered recently. When it was last tried, it was then unwound in both the UK and Portugal, so I am not sure that the appetite for change—and certainly not the appetite to follow the EU—is all that great.

Andrew Jones: In constituencies such as mine, the closure of the events and conference industry has hit local B&Bs and guest houses hard. Harrogate and Knaresborough are popular places to visit, even when there is not a pandemic. The House will be aware of the parks and gardens and Mother Shipton’s cave, and I know that my right hon. Friend is familiar with Bettys. With international travel being more difficult, can we have a debate on how best to support our domestic tourism sector and all the excellent hospitality businesses that are part of it?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am indeed familiar with Bettys, because when I went to speak for my hon. Friend, I was provided with a goody bag of delicious provisions at the end of the evening. I also note that Harrogate has been declared the best place in the country to work—I am sure that that is because it has such a fantastic Member of Parliament, and the broadband is merely incidental. The Government are trying to do what they can to help tourism. With our wider economic package, we have given one-off grants for eligible hospitality and leisure businesses, and VAT has been cut from 20% to 5% until the end of March. Tourism is obviously seasonal, and therefore the situation is being watched closely to ensure that the right policies continue to be implemented. He may want to raise further questions with the Chancellor—if you have been kind enough to put him on the call list, Mr Speaker—shortly after this.

Gavin Newlands: Last month, the leader of the Scottish Conservatives, the hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross), called for free school meals to be provided to every primary school pupil in the country, stating:
“I just want to make sure no-one falls through the cracks”.
Well, last night he failed to vote for free school meals, and his five Scottish colleagues voted against them. Can we have a debate in Government time on how many children in England will fall through the cracks as a result of his Government’s refusal to extend free school meals?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: As I said earlier, the Government have done a great deal to alleviate poverty for children and have provided £380 million in food vouchers for families in need over the summer. Free school meals have only ever been intended to support pupils during term time. There has been an increase in universal credit of £1,000 a year, an increase in local housing allowance, £180 million in discretionary housing payments to councils, a £63 million local welfare assistance fund so that councils can help those in financial difficulties, and £16 million for food charities.
The Government take this issue really seriously and have made great steps to help people who are finding life difficult due to the consequences of the coronavirus. We must sometimes understand in this House that we seek the same end, but by different means. There is nobody in this House who does not want to alleviate food poverty, but there are different ways of doing it. We think it is best done through the normal functioning of the welfare system and by the additional measures that the Government have taken. That is an honest disagreement, but it is not a lack of concern.

Martin Vickers: Last Friday I visited the Grimsby seafood village—which, despite its name, is in my constituency—and met businesses that had established themselves or, indeed, expanded during the covid pandemic. We will need those sorts of businesses to develop and establish themselves in order to ensure that the economy recovers after we get through this crisis. Could we have a debate to discuss how we may support new businesses?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: First, I congratulate Grimsby seafood village on doing so successfully in the current circumstances and my hon. Friend on being a promoter of it. The  Government are taking unprecedented action to support jobs and livelihoods across the UK, with more than £200 billion of taxpayers’ money being spent, including £11 billion in business grants and £10 billion in business rate relief. The summer economic update contained £33 billion of support through the jobs retention bonus and the eat out to help out scheme. The Chancellor will be here momentarily, and I am sure the Cleethorpes champion will be asking for Cleethorpes to get its fair share.

Jim Shannon: On 13 August 2020, some 60 parliamentarians from 28 countries around the world sent a letter to the Vietnamese President, calling for the immediate and unconditional release of imprisoned Vietnamese human rights activist, Nguyen Bac Truyen, who was abducted by Vietnamese police on 3 July 2017 in Ho Chi Minh City. Truyen’s ongoing imprisonment highlights the issues that many face in Vietnam in the exercise of their right to freedom of religion or belief. Will the Leader of the House agree to a statement or a debate on this very pressing issue?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The hon. Gentleman is perhaps the House’s most tireless campaigner for freedom of religion and for protection of religious minorities against persecution, and he has a great deal of support for what he does. The UK is committed to defending freedom of religion or belief for all and promoting respect between different religious and non-religious communities. Promoting the right to freedom of religion or belief is one of the UK’s human rights policy priorities, as it should be. The UK remains deeply concerned about the severity and scale of violations and abuses of freedom of religion in many parts of the world, and this issue will be raised with the Vietnam authorities at all suitable opportunities.
While answering the hon. Gentleman, may I congratulate him? I believe that, this week, he has become a grandfather for the fifth time, though he does not look old enough to have possibly managed this.

Peter Bone: A number of Members across the House have been campaigning all their political lives to get this country free from the shackles of the European Union. Therefore, it is exceptionally good news that the European Union has recently changed its position on a comprehensive free trade agreement and that Mr Barnier is coming to London this afternoon to try to finalise that deal. Will the Leader of the House recommend to the Prime Minister that Parliament should be recalled next week for a statement and a debate if such a historic agreement is reached?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am sure that my hon. Friend took the pleasure that I took that Monsieur Barnier decided that he might come to talk to us on Trafalgar Day, which seemed to have a certain historic resonance. I do not think that it would be right to recall the House next week for a statement, but the Chancellor of the Duchy  of Lancaster and, indeed, the Prime Minister have regularly kept this House up to date with developments in the negotiations.

Robert Largan: Can we have a debate on how we can help our high streets and small businesses? I want to highlight Buxton’s future high streets fund bid, which has been shortlisted by the Government. I sincerely hope that it is successful. Buxton high street has had some difficult years, but there are lots of reasons for optimism, such as Buxton Crescent, which has just reopened after a £70 million heritage refurb into a five-star hotel and spa. That is just another of the brilliant reasons why everyone should come to visit Buxton, Britain’s best spa town, as soon as it is safe to do so.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Buxton is a wonderful spa town. I might slightly quibble about “best” seeing as my constituency is so close to Bath, and I might upset my neighbours if I were to—[Interruption.] Ah, it is a city. We can agree then, although Harrogate might be upset. I had better not say which is the best in the country, but Buxton is certainly a very beautiful spa town. I am delighted to hear about the reopening of the Buxton Crescent after the £70 million refurbishment. As I said earlier, high streets are essential to our towns and our sense of community, and it is really important to use the £3.6 billion towns fund well. My hon. Friend is such a fantastic champion for his own area, and this is important because we want people to visit our great and historic towns and cities and spend money there and keep the economies going and thriving.

Chris Bryant: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am seriously worried about the Leader of the House’s answer about the Standards Committee, because we do need to be fully functioning. It is in the interests of the reputation of the House that we have all seven lay members appointed. It is nearly six months now since we went down to five lay members instead of seven. It is three months since the Commission, which you yourself chair, Mr Speaker, agreed the names that came forward through a process in which I was not involved at all. I note that the legislation says that the motion can be brought forward by any member of the Commission, but I wonder whether there is any means of you making sure that we are able to function fully as soon as possible.

Lindsay Hoyle: That is not a point of order for the Chair, but what I will say is that the Leader of the House has heard what has been said. I do not want to continue the debate from earlier, which, as an expert like yourself knows, I should not be doing. I do not want to make any further comment, so we shall leave it at that.
In order to allow the safe exit of hon. Members participating in this item of business and the safe arrival of those participating in the next, I am suspending the House for a few minutes.
Sitting suspended.

Covid-19: Economy Update

Rishi Sunak: Let me speak first to the people of Liverpool, Lancashire, South Yorkshire and Greater Manchester, and other areas moving into or already living under heightened health restrictions. I understand your frustration. People need to know that this is not forever; these are temporary restrictions to help control the spread of the virus. There are difficult days and weeks ahead, but we will get through this together. People are not on their own. We have an economic plan that will protect the jobs and livelihoods of the British people, wherever they live and whatever their situation. Just as we have throughout this crisis, we will listen and respond to people’s concerns as the situation demands.
I make no apology for responding to changing circumstances, so today we go further. The Prime Minister was right to outline a balanced approach to tackling coronavirus, taking the difficult decisions to save lives and keep the R rate down while doing everything in our power to protect the jobs and livelihoods of the British people. The evidence is clear: a regional, tiered approach is the right way to control the spread of the virus. My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury yesterday set out for the House our economic support for businesses that are legally required to close. We are providing: billions of pounds of support for local authorities and a grant scheme for affected businesses, worth up to half a billion pounds every month. Of course, we also expanded the job support scheme, with the Government covering the cost of paying two thirds of people’s normal wages if their employer had been legally required to close. For areas in local alert level 3, we have made available over £1 billion of generous up-front grants, so that local authorities can support businesses, protect jobs and aid economic recovery in a fair and transparent way. That is our plan to support closed businesses.
But it is clear that even businesses that can stay open are facing profound economic uncertainty. This morning I met business and union representatives, including those from the hospitality industry, to discuss the new restrictions. Their message was clear. The impact of the health restrictions on their businesses is worse than they hoped. They recognise the importance of the tiered restrictions in controlling the spread of the virus, but a significant fall in consumer demand is causing profound economic harm to their industry. It is clear that they and other open but struggling businesses require further support, so I am taking three further steps today.
First, I am introducing a new grant scheme for businesses impacted by tier 2 restrictions, even if they are not legally closed. We will fund local authorities to provide businesses in their area with direct cash grants. It will be up to local authorities to decide how best to distribute the grants, giving them the necessary flexibility to respond to local economic circumstances, but I am providing enough funding to give every business premises in the hospitality, leisure and accommodation sectors a direct grant worth up to £2,100 for every month for which tier 2 restrictions apply. That is equivalent to 70% of the value of the grants available for closed businesses in tier 3. Crucially, I am pleased to confirm that these grants will be retrospective; businesses in any area that has been under enhanced restrictions can backdate their grants to August.
I have been listening to and engaging with colleagues around the House, including—but not only—my hon. Friends the Members for Heywood and Middleton (Chris Clarkson), for Hyndburn (Sara Britcliffe), for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Miriam Cates), for South Ribble (Katherine Fletcher), for Burnley (Antony Higginbotham), for Keighley (Robbie Moore), for Cheadle (Mary Robinson), for Leigh (James Grundy) and for Southport (Damien Moore), and I am pleased to confirm that the backdating of the new grants means that we are being more generous to the businesses and places that have been under higher restrictions for longer. Let no one say that this Government are not committed to supporting the people and businesses in every region and nation of the United Kingdom.
Secondly, to protect jobs we are making the job support scheme more generous for employers. If businesses are legally required to close, as we have already outlined, the Government will cover the full cost of employers paying two thirds of people’s salary where they cannot work for a week or more. For businesses that can open, it is now clear that the impact of restrictions on them is more significant than they had hoped, particularly for those in the hospitality sector. I am therefore making two changes to the short-time work scheme to make it easier for those businesses to keep staff on, rather than make them redundant: first, under the original scheme, employees had to work for 33% of their normal hours, whereas now we will ask them to work only 20% of those hours; and secondly, the employer contribution for the hours not worked will not be 33% as originally planned, or even 20% as it is in the October furlough scheme, but will reduce to 5%.
The scheme will apply to eligible businesses in all alert levels, so that businesses that are not closed, but which face higher restrictions in places such as Liverpool, Lancashire, South Yorkshire, and Greater Manchester, as well as the devolved nations, will be able to access greater support. These changes mean more employers can access the scheme and more jobs will be protected. We have made this one of the most generous versions of a short-time work scheme anywhere in the world. It is better for businesses, better for jobs and better for the economy.
Thirdly, as we increase the contribution we are making towards employees’ wages, I am increasing our contribution to the incomes of the self-employed as well. Today we are doubling the next round of self-employed income support from 20% to 40% of people’s incomes, increasing the maximum grant to £3,750. So far through this crisis, we have provided more than £13 billion of support to self-employed workers. Sole traders, small businesses and self-employed people are the dynamic entrepreneurial heart of our economy, and this Government are on their side.
In conclusion, a wage subsidy for closed businesses, a wage subsidy for open businesses, cash grants of over £2,000 a month for tier 2 businesses and up to £3,000 a month for closed businesses, support for local authorities, support for the self-employed, support for people’s jobs and incomes, all on top of over £200 billion of support since March. This is our plan—a plan for jobs, for businesses, for the regions, for the economy, for the country. A plan to support the British people. I commend this statement to the House.

Anneliese Dodds: For months, we have urged the Chancellor to get ahead of the looming unemployment crisis and act to save jobs. Instead we have had a patchwork of poor ideas rushed out at the last minute: a bonus scheme that will pay £2.6 billion to businesses that do not need it; a job support scheme that simply was not going to work for the majority of businesses under pressure and that we said at the beginning did not do enough to incentivise employers to keep staff on; and an approach to support for areas entering tier 3 that has been nothing short of shambolic.
This has had real consequences. The deadline for large-scale redundancies came and went before the Chancellor announced the job support scheme, the deadline for small business redundancies passed before he realised that he needed to amend it, and many parts of our country have spent months under tier 2 restrictions without adequate support. How many jobs have been lost because of that inaction? Over a million have already gone. In the last quarter, we saw a record rise in redundancies. The Chancellor could have done much more if he had acted sooner.
Now we see yet another last-minute move. Let me ask the Chancellor. What has changed that means that this is the right thing to do now but it was not when parts of the north and midlands entered tier 2 many weeks ago? Does he agree with his own Mayor for the west midlands who said that
“this particular point was just one that was completely missed”.
Completely missed was the need for support for tier 2 areas. The Chancellor has only caught up and listened to the anxiety of workers and businesses when it looks like these restrictions will be affecting London and the west midlands. Will he apologise to those who have already lost their jobs and seen their businesses slip through their fingers in those areas that have not had that support until now?
The Chancellor referred to £1 billion of generous up-front grants for businesses and jobs provided in a “fair and transparent way”. There has not been a system of up-front grants for those in the north and midlands, and the process has not been fair and transparent for businesses and workers. To be honest, it is nothing short of insulting to describe what we have seen over the past few weeks as fair and transparent. The Government still have not published the formula that has been used for business support in tier 3 areas, and they still seem addicted to the approach where they say they are in negotiations with different areas but the reality is something completely different. When will he come clean about that support and the formula that is being used?
Will the Chancellor also make good on his Government’s claim that the JSS extension will be topped up to at least 80% for workers facing hardship? I know this is difficult for the Government. I see that the Prime Minister is sitting next to the Chancellor; he thought it would be topped up for everyone to 93%. I think that is what he said. Clearly the Government are not very sure on this, so maybe I can spell it out for them. That support does not amount to 80% for huge numbers of workers facing hardship—for example, those who have modest savings or who are excluded for other reasons, as so many are—and they have to wait five weeks anyway before they get that help. That could be fixed speedily by the  Government, but they are refusing to do so. Does the Chancellor also recognise that those fixes for social security must apply to the self-employed, for whom an increase to just 40% of their previous income will not stave off hardship—and that is not to mention those who have been excluded throughout.
This is becoming like a long-running television show: the winter economy plan, series 3. But the twist is that it did not last the winter, it did not do enough to help the economy and it was not a plan. We have to get ahead of this crisis instead of always running to keep up. That is why Labour has called for a national circuit breaker to give us a chance to reset and to fix the broken test, trace and isolate system, but time is running out to implement that circuit breaker so that it includes half term and maximises the opportunity it brings. Will the Chancellor change course?

Rishi Sunak: This is the third time I have come to this House in several weeks to outline additional support for the economy, jobs and livelihoods. It is a sign of the seriousness of the economic situation we face, and I will never make any apology for acting fast as the moment demands and as the health situation evolves. But at the heart of this debate is a more fundamental difference on the right approach for protecting livelihoods and lives. We on this side of the House believe it is right to be honest about the hard choices we confront and about the fact that there is no easy cost-free answer. With every restriction comes difficulty, and that is why we are doing everything we can to strike that balance between saving lives and protecting livelihoods.
We have made progress, and that is why we are now able to operate a localised, tiered approach. That is why, even now, in the most affected areas we are striving to keep businesses open, and that is why the support I have announced today is as generous as it is, to give as many businesses and employers as possible the opportunity to keep working and keep trading. All this progress and all this hope are being put at risk by Labour Members’ repeated calls for a damaging, blunt, national lockdown. They will not say for how long, but they have already admitted that it would roll on with no clear end in sight. They will not say how many jobs would be lost through such a national lockdown. They claim that their approach—an indefinite series of national on-off lockdowns—would be better for the economy. I am afraid the facts simply do not support that conclusion.
The policies we have outlined today strike that balance. They support our approach—a localised, regional approach that is striving to get that balance between protecting jobs and protecting livelihoods. They will support people in every region and nation of this United Kingdom. They will protect people’s jobs. They will support their incomes and provide their families with security and with hope for the future.
Throughout this crisis, I have always stood ready to work with all hon. Members in every business group, industry group and trade union to work through solutions and deal with this crisis. While the situation evolves and the challenges change, my approach will not—to build consensus, to reach out to those with different views, to work past tribal political point scoring and to support our country through this moment of immense challenge so that we come out on the other side a stronger, more United Kingdom.

Mel Stride: I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. Once again, he has listened to businesses. When it comes to lockdowns—I have to say that I agree with the remarks he has just made about circuit breakers—may I draw his attention to the minutes of the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies meeting on 21 September, which state:
“Policy makers will need to consider analysis of economic impacts and the associated harms alongside this epidemiological assessment. This work is underway under the auspices of the Chief Economist.”?
Will my right hon. Friend update the House on the progress that has been made by the chief economist? Does my right hon. Friend agree that, to ensure a balanced public debate, the chief economist or a similar economic expert should join the epidemiologists for No. 10 covid press briefings?

Rishi Sunak: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Opposition referenced the SAGE minutes but seemed to forget about that part of them, which rightly struck a balance between protecting jobs and protecting lives. He can rest assured that the Government will always do that. I may spare the chief economist the pleasure of attending the press conferences, but my right hon. Friend is right to say that that analysis is taking place. I have presented some of it at the press conferences, and I am happy to talk more about it at the Dispatch Box.
Fundamentally, my right hon. Friend knows, as I do, that our economy faces enormous strain. Almost three quarters of a million people have already lost their jobs, and, sadly, more will. That is why a regional, targeted approach is the right one. It allows us both to protect lives and to protect livelihoods.

Alison Thewliss: This is the third statement from the Chancellor in the space of a month, but that is not a sign of good management; it is a sign of panic and chaos from this Government. None of this should be coming as a surprise to them. It is telling that the Government have put out more under embargo today than they gave out to the Opposition spokespeople—a sign of real disrespect to the other parties in this House.
We in the Opposition have called for more certainty and a plan, because the evidence is that we are not coming out of this coronavirus crisis any time soon. The Chancellor has not listened or responded, so I ask again for three things. I ask him to listen and to act; to extend furlough and the self-employment income support scheme at the rates from earlier in the year to protect jobs and livelihoods; and to fill the gaps and help those who are excluded completely from his support schemes. He knows that that is a problem, and he is choosing to ignore it.
I ask the Chancellor to keep the £20 uplift to universal credit and extend it to legacy benefits, including for those who have disabilities. Two thirds of the minimum wage is not enough to live on, and not everybody is entitled to universal credit. Huge gaps remain: carers, asylum seekers, those with disabilities and those with no recourse to public funds have all been left behind by this Government, with a cold, long winter ahead.
Significant sectors such as culture and the arts, hospitality, food and drink wholesalers, tourism, transport and aviation, and many more are not going back to normal any time soon, and they deserve Government support.  Will the Chancellor align his support scheme with the Scottish Government’s public health proposals and those of the other devolved institutions?
UK Government support for Scotland does not go far enough to mitigate the local lockdowns that we have faced. The UK Government must now provide clarity on the Barnett consequentials to help us to plan and protect businesses and our people. The Scottish Government need this now—today—not in three months’ time, not eventually and not at some point in the future. We need it now, and the Chancellor should give clarity on it today so that the Scottish Government can act.
The Chancellor’s scheme has been full of holes. Time and time again, he comes here in a knee-jerk reaction, full of panic, rather than planning ahead for a situation that we told him would arise. This is nowhere near “whatever it takes”. I ask him to go further today, and to work with all the Opposition parties and the devolved institutions to get this right.

Rishi Sunak: When we outlined the original job support scheme, it was actually very warmly welcomed not only by various business groups, including the CBI, the Federation of Small Businesses and the chambers of commerce, but by the trade unions, because everyone at that moment recognised that it was a significant and generous intervention to protect the jobs and livelihoods of the British people. But the situation has changed. The health restrictions are having an impact, particularly in the hospitality sector, which the hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) mentioned. That is why we have taken the steps that we have today. We are providing the certainty that she asked for, as this scheme will last for at least six months through to next spring. There is certainty over that. The grants we have outlined today will work on a monthly basis for as long as businesses are either in tier 2 restrictions or are closed under tier 3. Businesses can plan on that basis.
With regard to the Barnett consequentials, the Government will always ensure that people will benefit from this support wherever they are living in the United Kingdom. That is why we have provided an up-front guarantee to devolved nations worth £14 billion, which will help them also to plan at what is, I understand, a difficult time for everyone.

Robert Largan: I am really pleased that the Chancellor has listened and shown that this Government will always support the north. I am delighted that these tier 2 retrospective measures, such as the expansion of the job support scheme and the business grants, will make a massive difference to people living in Glossopdale in my constituency who have been under tier 2. On the business grants, may I urge the Chancellor to make certain that the money and the guidance on how that money can be used is made available to councils as soon as possible so that the businesses who need it can get it urgently and help to save jobs?

Rishi Sunak: My hon. Friend has been right to champion the situation for his local businesses. I know that they will warmly welcome this. I can give him the assurance that we will work as quickly as possible to provide the guidance. As I said, the grant value will be calculated on the number of hospitality, leisure and accommodation business premises, scaled by their rateable value. Added  to that will be a 5% discretionary top-up, and then the local authority can use its discretion to allocate the money as it sees fit for its local area.

Angela Eagle: It seems the Chancellor’s much-vaunted winter economic plan has not even lasted the autumn. His tinkering with the system demonstrates that he has been behind the curve all along, and it has sowed hardship and confusion. Why is the support he offered in March not being replicated as the virus comes back and we are suffering a second wave in October? Why is he trying to achieve local lockdowns on the cheap?

Rishi Sunak: I would not consider that providing £200 billion of total support could ever be accused of doing anything on the cheap. That money has gone to support public services like the NHS, and people’s jobs, livelihoods and businesses. I commit to this House that we will continue to do everything that is required, and continue to adapt and evolve as the circumstances demand.

Bernard Jenkin: I thank my right hon. Friend for bringing forward this package, for listening and for acting in the interests of the economy. Is it not essential that we align the interests of business and the economy with the interests of controlling the virus, rather than let those become polar opposites in argument with each other? Can we perhaps draw back from some of the partisanship that has soured relations over the past few days, because that does not do any good for public confidence in how we are all tackling this very difficult and wearing crisis?

Rishi Sunak: Those are wise words from my hon. Friend. He is right to highlight the importance, in this House and elsewhere, of our adopting a constructive and collegiate approach to tackling what is clearly a national crisis, and one that we will get through. We will get through it by working together and emerging stronger on the other side.

Gerald Jones: From tomorrow, Wales will begin a 17-day firebreak lockdown to help to control the spread of the virus. During that period, there will be two support schemes from the Treasury as one ends and another one starts. The First Minister of Wales has asked the Chancellor to allow Welsh businesses to access the job support scheme a week early. He has refused, so a further request has been made to ease the rules on furlough for one week to allow people to get that support. We need to ensure that bureaucracy is reduced to allow Welsh businesses to protect jobs, so will the Chancellor be flexible, and what support, specifically, will he give to Welsh businesses?

Rishi Sunak: We have tried to reduce the bureaucracy by making sure that we do not have overlapping schemes at the same time. That would only increase complexity for businesses. We have endeavoured in all ways to provide support on a UK-wide basis, as I have said in conversations with the First Minister and others. We are doing this on a UK-wide basis in the knowledge that devolved nations are making individual decisions that ultimately the UK Government and UK taxpayer  will be funding. That situation will work only if people can work in a constructive and aligned spirit, which is what I have said to all, and I very much hope that that can be continued in the coming months.

Andrew Mitchell: I greatly welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. The measures he has announced are significant and generous, delivered in a manner that is fast becoming this Chancellor’s hallmark. May I thank him for hearing the powerful arguments advanced by the west midlands Mayor, Andy Street, especially in respect of the hospitality industry, and for addressing the serious business jeopardy that did lie between tiers 2 and 3?

Rishi Sunak: My right hon. Friend is right that the Mayor, Andy Street, has been vocal, and rightly so, in highlighting the particular impact of the tier 2 restrictions on the hospitality industry. That helped inform our decision to act today, with speed and scale, to provide support to those businesses, which will be warmly welcomed in his area.

Patrick Grady: I wonder if the Chancellor regrets ruling out of hand the SNP’s calls in the spring for a universal basic income. Will he calculate what impact a minimum income guarantee like that would have had for employers, employees and the self-employed alike, and what the overall cost would be, compared with the billions he is finding for all these myriad schemes? Will he calculate the long-term costs of millions more on universal credit and other social security benefits, with the consequences of that on the economy and society?

Rishi Sunak: The Government do not agree with the universal basic income. It would not be right to provide money to millions of people who have absolutely no need of it; that would just detract our resources, which are targeted on those in most need, as has been our approach throughout the crisis.
With regard to universal credit and welfare, the Government believe that the best way to help people is to provide them with work and opportunity. That is why all our efforts are targeted on providing that support to protect as many jobs as possible while recognising that we cannot protect every single job. That is why we have also strengthened our safety net, with billions invested in universal credit and local housing allowance and, crucially, funding provided for new opportunities through training and apprenticeships to help people find fresh opportunity and a brighter future.

Scott Benton: Although I welcome the Chancellor’s statement, the imposition of tier 3 restrictions in Lancashire will inevitably mean that many of my constituents will be significantly worse off. While the additional funding for Lancashire, including the £42 million package, is welcome, there will still be far too many businesses who cannot access the Chancellor’s direct support. Hundreds of hotels in my constituency stand to lose thousands in lost bookings, but, because they have not been mandated to close, they will not be entitled to the additional support packages. Will he take steps to ensure that businesses such as small hotels, which are completely unviable under tier 3 restrictions, can access grants and the extended job support scheme?

Rishi Sunak: I am happy to tell my hon. Friend that the money provided to Lancashire, as it entered tier 3, for overall business support can be used precisely to help the businesses he rightly mentions that are being affected by the restrictions, even though they are open. That funding is there for the county council and other local authorities to do that. The enhanced generosity of the job support scheme I have announced will go a long way to helping those businesses as well, making it easy and affordable for them to get the wage support they need from the Government to protect as many jobs as possible.

Christine Jardine: While I appreciate yet another partial U-turn from the Chancellor, what the country needs now more than anything is leadership, clarity and confidence that the Government are in control rather than this constant reaction and a patchwork with every hallmark of having been written on the back of a cigarette packet that we are getting from this Government. I plead with the Chancellor to consider going the whole way and keep the job retention scheme going after the end of October, let the devolved nations know what consequentials they will have—they need to plan as well—and give the country what he promised. He said he would do whatever it takes; this is not it.

Rishi Sunak: The hon. Lady asks for an extension of the job retention scheme. It is worth drawing her attention to the fact that the employer contribution to the job retention scheme in October is 20%, whereas under the new, more generous, job support scheme it has been reduced to 5%. That is more generous and will protect more jobs and more people’s livelihoods.

Jim Shannon: I welcome the Chancellor’s commitment to helping the whole United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland; we much value the money that has come forward. May I speak for the distribution sector, which daily delivers perishable foods not only to care homes, the NHS and schools, but to pubs, cafés and restaurants that are closed in tier 2 and 3 locations? The costs for distribution remain the same for jobs, vehicles and businesses. What help can those in the distribution sector access as a result of the Chancellor’s announcement?

Rishi Sunak: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the supply chains of those who serve the hospitality industry. I draw his attention to two things. The tier 2 grant programme that I announced today will contain a 5% discretionary top-up, which local authorities can use at their own discretion to support local businesses; they may choose to use some of it to address the needs that he outlines. Also, we have not targeted the enhanced generosity of the job support scheme purely at the hospitality industry, or indeed purely at businesses operating in tier 2 areas, because we recognise the complexity of the supply chains that he mentions. The very generous job support scheme will be available for all businesses in all parts of the country, regardless of sector, which I think will make an enormous difference to the businesses that he mentions.

Matt Vickers: They say that good things come in small packages. Well, my right hon. Friend might be small, but he has delivered a huge  package of job-saving, business-boosting support that will benefit the people of Stockton South and people right across the country. I thank the myth, the man, the legend who is my right hon. Friend for this life-saving support for businesses in my patch. Will he continue to review and react promptly to the ever-changing situation in his characteristically charismatic way?

Rishi Sunak: I am very grateful for my hon. Friend’s kind—I think—compliments; he knows that he is a large part of the reason why I am in this House, so he can take as much of the credit or blame for that as is required. I can give him the reassurance that he seeks. I have been delighted to visit his local businesses with him, and I know that he is an enormous champion for his local community, high streets and businesses. He works very hard on their behalf, and I know that the measures that we have announced today will make a difference to him and make sure that his community continues to be a thriving place.

Navendu Mishra: Alan Gent runs the Petersgate Tap in my constituency. He employs five members of staff and the impact of the pandemic was already choking his business. He is not currently paying business rates, but his private landlord has rejected his request for a rent holiday, and now that Stockport is in tier 3, he cannot stay open. The support currently offered is woefully inadequate. Will the Chancellor now commit to addressing the real hardship of those who work in Stockport’s pubs, bars and hospitality sector?

Rishi Sunak: I have every sympathy with the hon. Gentleman’s constituent—I know what a difficult time it must be for him and his team and for those in similar industries—but actually I think that the support provided already will help him. The pub will be eligible for a business rate cash grant of up to £3,000 per month that he remains closed under tier 3 restrictions; across the UK, it will vary by place, but that should largely cover the vast majority of small and medium-sized pubs’ rental bills for that time. Of course, the five team members that the hon. Gentleman mentions could be put on the expanded job support scheme at essentially no cost to the employer. Those employees’ wages will be protected and covered by the Government.

Andrew Jones: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement and thank him for all he is doing. Harrogate and Knaresborough is at the medium level, tier 1, but areas surrounding it are in the higher tier 2 category. Businesses have noted that with concern and are worried about what might happen should the position change and our tier be increased. The enhanced package will therefore be welcomed; I welcome it strongly. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the reduction in employer costs will result in more jobs being saved?

Rishi Sunak: As ever, I thank my hon. Friend for his thoughtful comments. He is right. That is why we took the decision to make this a universal approach, with enhanced generosity, to deal with the situation he mentioned of businesses operating in proximity to other areas under restrictions—those supply chains. This is a universal, generous approach, designed, as he said, with a lower employer contribution, to make sure that we can protect and support as many jobs as possible.

Kerry McCarthy: Back in March, the Chancellor said that those in the exhibition sector with physical properties and business rates would be eligible for the cash grant, but when they approached their local councils they found out that that was not true and that, because they did not open their premises to the public, they were not eligible. Exhibition companies in my constituency have received minimal support and are really struggling, and it looks like conferences and mass events will not go ahead until a vaccine is in place. It might not offer a photo opportunity like being a waiter at Wagamama, but may I urge the Chancellor to meet exhibition companies, including those in my constituency, and hear how much they are suffering?

Rishi Sunak: The hon. Lady might make disparaging comments about photo opportunities at Wagamama, but that was precisely because that sector employs 2 million people who are disproportionately lower paid, from ethnic minorities, younger and women. It is right that we focus our support on those in the hospitality sector, because they are particularly impacted by the restrictions.
The hon. Lady is right to highlight the plight of those in the events and exhibition industry. I am very sympathetic to that. Those businesses with business premises will receive business rates relief if they are in those categories. Indeed, the categories for the tier 2 grants that we have announced today will include hospitality, leisure and accommodation, under the Valuation Office Agency codes. Exhibition and events spaces are typically included in that, so they will be included in the calculation of the grant value provided to local authorities.

Andrew Griffith: Business leaders I speak to, both in Arundel and South Downs and nationally, recognise that tailoring our response to the circumstances is a strength, not a weakness. They also know that there are no easy choices, but the worst of all worlds would be a blunt national circuit break, which would cost rather than save jobs.

Rishi Sunak: My hon. Friend is absolutely right on his last point. We are lucky to benefit from the considerable business experience that he brings to this place. He is right that, in business as in public policy, it is right that we evolve and adapt to the circumstances. That is what we have done today, but it is right that we do it in a targeted, tiered way, not with the blunt national instrument that, as he rightly says, would unnecessarily cause hardship and cost jobs.

Alex Norris: I understand that at half-past 4 today a Government Minister will meet local leaders in Nottingham to put us into the third tier. We had to find that out through the media, because local Members of Parliament have not been invited, which is saddening. If measures need to be taken to protect the health and wellbeing of our community, we will of course support them, but they will have a profound impact on our local economy. If Nottingham moves into tier 3 this afternoon, what package of support will the Chancellor put in place to protect our jobs and businesses?

Rishi Sunak: I know that it is a difficult time for the hon. Gentleman’s constituents, and he is right that they should engage constructively. I am glad that he and his local area are doing that. There will be a variety of  support available. Closed businesses will receive grants of up to £3,000 a month, paid centrally. Obviously, similar to other areas, there will be a negotiation and a conversation with the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, which will result in an amount of support being provided for businesses. Of course, as the hon. Gentleman will know, there is also a formula to provide the local authority with support of up to £8 per head, and that money is used to enhance local compliance enforcement and contact tracing. I know that those conversations are ongoing and I very much hope that they will have a constructive outcome.

Stephen Metcalfe: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement and thank him for supporting people and businesses across Essex. Already more than 15,000 people have benefited from the furlough scheme, and more than 5,000 from the self-employment income support scheme. These additional measures to support those who have been adversely affected by the recent introduction of tier 2 in Essex are welcome. Will he confirm that he will continue to do whatever it takes to support our country and our economy?

Rishi Sunak: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. He mentioned some numbers, and that is ultimately what it is about. We stand in this place and talk about many billions of pounds and policy, but often it is about the people and the jobs and livelihoods that we are trying to protect. I am delighted to hear that the 20,000 people he mentioned have benefited from the support that this Government have put in place, and I can give him and them the assurance that we will continue to do exactly that.

Ben Lake: As Wales enters a firebreak lockdown tomorrow evening, there are concerns that there will be a week-long gap in support between the end of the furlough scheme and the introduction of the new wage support scheme. It would be good if the Chancellor could consider giving Welsh businesses early access to that scheme. May I ask him to clarify the eligibility criteria, in particular whether seasonal workers will be eligible for support?

Rishi Sunak: There will not be any gap in support, I am pleased to tell the hon. Gentleman, because, as he knows, the CJRS runs all the way to the end of this month and the job support scheme starts on 1 November. There will be complete coverage and no interruption. We provided Barnett funding on the grants from the moment I announced them, so that is also available to the Welsh Government. With regard to the specific treatment of seasonal workers and the computation of the reference earnings, that is set out in the guidance for the CJRS and that will remain consistent in the new job support scheme.

Richard Fuller: In his statement on 8 July, my right hon. Friend said his measures would be always
“unencumbered by dogma”
and
“driven always by the simple desire to do what is right.”—[Official Report, 8 July 2020; Vol. 678, c. 937.]
He was right then and he is right today in announcing these measures. I noted the extension in support for the self-employed, which will now extend all the way through to April. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that he is also working with the Health Secretary to ensure that we are doing whatever we can to get self-employed people and everyone else into work and back to work without restrictions as quickly as possible?

Rishi Sunak: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The self-employed are a part of the entrepreneurial side of our economy that will help to drive our recovery. It is right that they receive support and I am proud that the support we have put in place—over £13 billion benefiting almost 3 million people—is one of the most comprehensive and generous packages of support for the self-employed. Ultimately, however, his last point is the one we should focus on. The best way to help people is to allow them to get on and do the job they love doing, and allow them to trade.

Chris Bryant: I am not going to quibble; I think all of this is good and I am delighted that it is being announced today. However, I just want to say to the Chancellor that some of the measures he has announced apply across the whole of the UK and some apply only in England. That provides a lot of confusion for a lot of ordinary people out in the country who do not watch what we are doing in here every day and do not follow every element of the minutiae. Will he clarify precisely how much of the money he is announcing today is really new money to be spent in England through local authorities on the new business grants in tier 2 areas? How much extra money—I do not want to know about the earlier £14 billion for the devolved nations—because of Barnett consequentials is now coming to Wales?

Rishi Sunak: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. He is right and I can appreciate the confusion. We try to do things on a UK-wide level, but obviously not everything will be on that level. I cannot give him a precise figure, because these are demand-led schemes. What we have tried to do is provide upfront funding guarantees in advance of that demand being drawn down in England and the Barnett consequentials being delivered. We true those up on a regular basis—I am happy to write to him with further details—but we try to provide the funding to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland in advance of that demand actually occurring in England. I think that is a better and more generous approach for the devolved nations.

Laura Trott: I welcome the Chancellor’s statement. Keeping a link to viable jobs is absolutely crucial, so does my right hon. Friend agree that it is better to keep businesses open and functioning where possible with support, rather than locking down nationally, multiple times?

Rishi Sunak: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. When I talk to both businesses and employees, they say that what they want is to be able to go to the jobs they love. They want to be able to do that. They want to be able to serve customers and they want to be able to welcome us all back to their restaurants, pubs, cafés and so on. She is right that we have to strike that balance. I think the approach that the Government have taken  does that—it strikes that balance. The support we have put in place today will enable as many of those people to remain in their job working hard and hopefully have a fulfilling future to come.

Deidre Brock: It is good to see the Chancellor has found the magic money tree of Tory myth and given it another shake, but the money needs to go to the self-employed, the smallest businesses and the poorest households. He will have total control of VAT soon. Will he look at cutting tax on household essentials? Will he target the support for job retention schemes at the smallest businesses, so they can continue to employ people, rather than offsetting the wage bill of some supermarkets? Tesco, Sainsbury’s and Waitrose are not feeling the pinch the way that small enterprises are feeling it. Will he send the cash where it will do the most good?

Rishi Sunak: The hon. Lady is right in saying that support should now be targeted at where it can make the most difference. That is why our approach has evolved through this crisis, and what was universal at the beginning and at the peak of the crisis has now evolved into a more targeted approach. To give one example, a difference between the job support scheme and the old furlough scheme is that now large businesses—precisely the kinds of businesses she mentioned—will not be able to access the job support scheme, especially with its new, more generous terms, unless that business is seeing revenue decline. That sensible change means that support is rightly targeted at smaller and medium-sized businesses that need our help at this difficult time, and not at the large businesses that are not seeing any change to their business model.

Lindsay Hoyle: Let us head to Ludlow and Philip Dunne. There is no sound, so I call Naz Shah.

Naseem Shah: I do not need to tell the Chancellor about the way we are going, with the economy plunging further into a crisis. The biggest thing that businesses in my constituency tell me is that uncertainty is their biggest enemy. We have now been under extra restrictions for more than 150 days. If we go into tier 3, and given that the Chancellor does not want a planned circuit breaker, what support will he give to businesses in my constituency of Bradford West? Importantly, how long should they be prepared for uncertainty?

Rishi Sunak: I am pleased to tell the hon. Lady that the tier 2 grants that I announced today will be backdated, so that her businesses and local authority will receive funding that is backdated to when they entered tier 2 restrictions. I think those grants worth up to £2,000 over a month will be of enormous support to businesses in her constituency, at what I appreciate is a difficult time.

James Wild: Although Norfolk remains in tier 1, the additional support for hospitality, tourism and other businesses is welcome. As well as the short-term measures in this plan for jobs, looking longer term, will my right hon. Friend bring forward proposals in the spending review for tourism zones, including one for Norfolk and Suffolk? Will he  accelerate the roll-out of gigabit broadband for businesses in North West Norfolk, so that they benefit sooner from greater connectivity?

Rishi Sunak: My hon. Friend regularly reminds us all about the importance of digital connectivity in rural areas such as his, and indeed mine, and he will know, as I do, that the Government are committed to bringing both gigabit-capable broadband and mobile phone networks to all the parts of our country that otherwise might not have as strong connectivity as they would like. I know he will join me in welcoming that, as it will make an enormous difference to the local economy in his and other rural areas.

Debbie Abrahams: Twenty-three OECD countries had job subsidy schemes in place for a major event such as a pandemic, but unfortunately, the UK was not one of them. The Government’s piecemeal approach to the pandemic is leading many of my constituents to ask why we were so poorly prepared for it in every single way. In Oldham East and Saddleworth, unemployment has nearly doubled since March. We know now that across the country nearly 300,000 people were not eligible for social security support. A third of those people were disabled and one in 10 were from the north-west. How many low-income workers covered by this new financial package will be excluded from social security support to top up their wages?

Rishi Sunak: The hon. Lady is right to say that we did not have a wage support scheme when we entered this crisis, which is why I place on record my thanks to the fantastic team of officials at the Treasury and at HMRC for acting with unbelievable speed and decisiveness in helping me to create, design, and implement these schemes in record time, enabling us to help pay the wages and protect the jobs of more than 9 million people.

Luke Evans: Last night I had a meeting with the Hinckley business improvement district and met businesses that raised concerns about what would happen should they go into tier 2. At the time I told them that the Chancellor and the Treasury were listening, and I am pleased to welcome the support for businesses in tier 2, should my area move into that. In the spirit of listening, will the Chancellor consider providing a road map for businesses that are struggling the most, such as those running weddings, events and conferences and those in the travel industry, to try to provide some clarity and certainty going forward?

Rishi Sunak: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this. He has raised with me the impact on businesses in his area of a potential move into tier 2, and I hope he will be reassured by the announcements today. Travel and events are interlinked. As he and I know, we must work to find a way to allow more travel to happen. The Transport Secretary has spoken to colleagues about that. He is actively engaged in working with industry and health professionals to see what more we can do to facilitate greater ease of travel, and therefore open up travel corridors and help our events industry.

Stephen Farry: It is important that the public health and economic support measures move in harmony. Northern Ireland had to go  into tighter restrictions on 16 October, ahead of other parts of the UK. The 20% employer contribution in the outgoing job retention scheme is a major challenge for employers to keep jobs. Given that the Chancellor has shown some flexibility today, will he reconsider the timescale of the new scheme and backdate the 5% employer contribution to 16 October?

Rishi Sunak: Given that the grants are backdated, if that results in extra Barnett consequentials, of course that extra funding will flow to Northern Ireland, as it will to other devolved nations. With regard to the job support scheme, as I said, there will be no interruption of coverage between one scheme and the other. As the hon. Gentleman points out, the employer contribution will be significantly reduced on 1 November.

Dehenna Davison: I am incredibly grateful to my right hon. Friend and the whole Treasury team for their work, and I would especially like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho) for her engagement on this matter. I am already receiving messages from my constituents to say that they are delighted with these schemes. Bishop Auckland landlords will be helped out by this. I just have one question: how quickly can we expect these grants to hit businesses? I know that County Durham did an exceptional job of getting them out last time, but if he could provide a timeline, I would be grateful.

Rishi Sunak: I know that my hon. Friend is a proud champion of all her local pubs, judging by all her Instagram photos—I am very jealous. Having visited many of them with her during the campaign, I am glad that she is providing them with the support that they need at this difficult time. I know that these grants will make a difference. I can reassure her that we will work very quickly to get the guidance out. The funding will be available on a monthly basis; a month after the restrictions start, the funding will be there for those businesses.

Martyn Day: The Chancellor has announced the latest package of covid measures, and we clearly face a further protracted period of the crisis, with more and more areas going into local restrictions. Given the regional packages announced for England, will the Chancellor tell us exactly what the Barnett consequentials will be, as devolved nations need to plan properly for their own mitigation measures?

Rishi Sunak: I refer the hon. Gentleman to my answer to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant). We have taken the approach of providing up-front funding guarantees to devolved nations, worth £14 billion currently, and we will update and review those regularly. In all ways, dealing with these demand-led schemes is difficult, which is why we have taken this approach, which is generous and better at providing up-front funding to devolved nations.

Bob Neill: The Chancellor’s measures will be welcomed by the hospitality sector in London, although I hope he might have a word with the Health Secretary about the point of a 10 pm curfew if it is members of a family dining  together. Will he look carefully at support for the events sector? As he knows, that sector supports not only private events but many large corporate events. We have a great number of those of the highest quality in London. There are thousands of jobs and millions of pounds of turnover involved here, but because these businesses do not serve food directly to the public from their production kitchens, they have not so far been able to benefit from the business rate relief scheme. Can we look at those loopholes that they have been falling through?

Rishi Sunak: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. Where the guidance is not clear on businesses that are legally required not to open but not legally closed and therefore do not benefit from some support, we are actively looking at that and ensuring that we can fix it. Events and exhibitions are one of the VOA categories that will be included in the hospitality and leisure calculation that we use for the tier 2 grants I have announced today. More generally, the best thing we can do is try to open up more travel and, as time progresses and we can do more testing, to get life back into that sector by allowing it to get on with what it wants to do, which is to put on a fantastic events.

Nick Smith: In March, the Government increased the basic allowances for both universal credit and working tax credit by £20 a week, but that uplift is only temporary; it will expire next April. Does the Chancellor accept that, after what we all expect to be a tough winter ahead, that will mean taking nearly £1,000 a year away from those families who really need it?

Rishi Sunak: We did put in place the temporary uplift of universal credit but, as the hon. Gentleman says, it still has five or six months to run; it will be in place to support vulnerable families throughout the difficult winter period and is there all the way until next spring.

Gagan Mohindra: I welcome the measures announced today. As the Chancellor will be aware, 15,400 people have benefited from the furlough scheme in South West Hertfordshire, and I applaud the sustainable and affordable approach he has adopted. Does he agree that the approach needs to remain pragmatic, with an evolution of policy, to give more certainty to our communities?

Rishi Sunak: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In the face of something we have never seen before—we are all grappling with how to deal with it—it is right that we remain pragmatic and flexible; it is not right to be wedded to dogma and be unwilling to change when the facts change. We will always do that, as we grapple with the health crisis and the economic crisis. We will remain flexible and nimble, but always with the same values and principles underlying what we do, which is to try to protect as many people’s jobs and livelihoods as we can.

Kirsten Oswald: The UK Government wax lyrical about a flexible labour market as a strength of the UK economy, but the Chancellor’s support packages have excluded millions and so many will continue to be excluded from support.  So will he again look at provisions for the millions who still fall through the holes in his schemes? If he will not do the right thing by these excluded groups, will he please release the resources to devolved Administrations to allow them to do so?

Rishi Sunak: Our support for the self-employed remains among the most comprehensive and generous anywhere in the world, and is now approximating almost £13 billion for almost 3 million people. Barnett consequentials of more than £13 billion or £14 billion have been provided to the devolved nations and, if the Scottish Government choose to do something different with that, that is of course up to them.

Stephanie Peacock: In the past six months, the number of people forced to claim unemployment benefit in Barnsley has doubled. If the Chancellor is saying that livelihoods have to be balanced against lives, should the people of Barnsley expect unemployment to rise, the death rate to rise, or both?

Rishi Sunak: It is exactly because we need to adopt a balanced approach that we have taken the more regional and tiered approach that we have. We never pretended there are easy choices here—it would be wrong to say otherwise. We are balancing protecting the economy and protecting people’s jobs and livelihoods while suppressing the virus, in the least damaging way possible. There is no perfect answer. As I said, there are no easy choices. But we will always be honest about that and try to tread that careful path between those two things. What would be more damaging for people’s jobs and livelihoods is a blunt national lockdown, which would inflict unnecessary hardship and suffering on people where the virus is not particularly rampant.

Lucy Allan: Throughout this crisis, the Chancellor has shown himself to be adaptable, nimble, flexible, dextrous and agile—perhaps it is down to the Peloton bike or a yoga exercise. I do not know what it is down to, but those are critical skills, essential for success in any endeavour. I thank him from the bottom of my heart for the measures he has announced today, which will benefit my constituents, who have struggled so much to keep their livelihoods afloat. I am truly grateful to him. Does he agree that the sledgehammer blunt instrument of a circuit breaker or fire break—call it what you like, but that type of lockdown—would be devastating to our communities and our economy? Will he do everything he can to ensure that that does not happen?

Rishi Sunak: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I thank her for her warm words. She knows, as someone who is a huge champion of small businesses in her area, repeatedly bringing their concerns to this Chamber, how damaging it would be to inflict unnecessary pain and suffering on those businesses and those people’s jobs and livelihoods. That is why the Prime Minister’s and this Government’s approach of a regional, tiered strategy is absolutely the right one.

Tony Lloyd: The Chancellor will recognise that, although the tier system is only a few weeks old, Greater Manchester has been de facto in tier 2 for three months, before moving into tier 3 this  week. The Chancellor told the House, in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah), that these grants will now be retrospective. Can he be absolutely clear: will the grants for Greater Manchester go back to the beginning of our period of de facto tier 2 and not simply to when the Government introduced the more formal, legalistic tier 2?

Rishi Sunak: Yes, I can, and I hope I did, provide that reassurance. For all areas that have been suffering essentially de facto restrictions, as the hon. Gentleman said, we will backdate the grants through to the beginning of August as required, and that will benefit many local businesses in Greater Manchester. I am grateful for the representations I had on this matter from many colleagues around the House, including many of those I mentioned in my statement.

Lindsay Hoyle: Let us head up to Yorkshire with Julian Sturdy.

Julian Sturdy: [Inaudible.]

Lindsay Hoyle: We will go up to Scotland for the next question, from Neil Gray.

Neil Gray: It has taken weeks for the Chancellor to tinker with his job support scheme to get it to a better place, as if he was surprised by the impact that the necessary public health restrictions would have; it really prompts the question why he did not just keep furlough. But the big question today is why he did not do anything about making the universal credit £20 per week lifeline permanent and extending it to legacy benefits, which would have disproportionately benefited disabled people at this difficult time.

Rishi Sunak: Maybe the hon. Gentleman knew something that the TUC and every other business group did not when they warmly welcomed the introduction of the job support scheme, but I am grateful to have his thoughts. He might also want to have a word with his colleague the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock), who said that it was wrong to give support to large businesses that were benefiting from this crisis. That is exactly why it would be wrong to extend the furlough scheme. The job support scheme is more targeted in its approach, makes sure that those types of businesses are not able to access support and, as I have mentioned, is more generous to employers than the October furlough scheme.

Huw Merriman: I warmly welcome the Chancellor’s statement and thank him and his colleagues, and indeed the Department, for everything they are doing. It would take the most churlish of people to claim that this is anything but flexible, nimble and massive support for business. I recognise that, in making the job support scheme more generous, the Chancellor is now providing support for businesses that are open, and that is absolutely welcome. What steps are being taken in respect of those businesses that are open and perhaps do not need as much support—or, indeed, there could be fraudulent claims—to protect the taxpayer?

Rishi Sunak: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and that is why we have evolved our approach. Whereas earlier in this crisis, when we were facing something that was happening with enormous speed and severity, we erred on the side of being more universal in our approach and acting quickly, obviously, as time has progressed, we can be more targeted—more effective—to root out misuse of these schemes and make sure that support is targeted where it is most needed. As I said, one example of that is all the various new eligibility criteria for the job support scheme, ensuring that large businesses that are not suffering a revenue decline will not be able to access the scheme. There are also conditions around redundancy notices and the ability of large companies to make capital distributions while using the scheme. All those are sensible changes that go to the heart of what my hon. Friend said: we should target our support on those who really need it.

Lindsay Hoyle: Let us return to Yorkshire with Julian Sturdy. I think he has got his voice back.

Julian Sturdy: Thank you, Mr Speaker—take two. I thank my right hon. Friend for listening to the concerns that have been raised by York’s tourism and hospitality sector and announcing an extensive package of support for areas such as York that have been left in limbo under the tier 2 restrictions. However, does he agree that the best way to support York’s wider economy is to get us back to tier 1 as swiftly as possible? Can he assure me that the support announced today will not be used to justify prolonging additional restrictions for longer than is necessary?

Rishi Sunak: My hon. Friend is absolutely right: the best way to help businesses and protect people’s jobs is to allow businesses to trade and allow the economy to function as normally as possible. The support we have put in place today will not be used as an excuse not to do that, and as the Prime Minister said, we will be reviewing all these restrictions on a 28-day basis. Of course, we all want to see our local areas get back to as much of normality as they can, as quickly as possible.

Emma Hardy: One hundred and nine coach companies have gone bust, with 7,100 people made redundant, which is one sixth of the entire coach industry. Coach companies tell me that one reason for that is that they fall between gaps in support, being classified as neither tourism nor essential travel. Please will the Chancellor look urgently into what specific support can be given to the coach industry? Will the relevant Minister meet me and representatives of the sector to discuss their concerns?

Rishi Sunak: I am happy to organise for a relevant Minister to meet the hon. Lady. I hope that those companies—she is right about the difficult time they are experiencing—will have been able to access, for example, the bounce back loans or the coronavirus business interruption loans to help them with cash flow, and ditto with the VAT deferral and time to pay. But I appreciate that it is a difficult time for them, and the best thing we can do is allow more economic activity so they can get their coaches full as quickly as possible.

Kevin Hollinrake: I warmly welcome this package of support. Nevertheless, as the Chancellor has acknowledged, this will be a difficult  winter for some businesses. When we move into what I hope will be a spring recovery, we will see the reintroduction of the full rates of VAT and business rates. Would my right hon. Friend consider phasing in the reintroduction of those at slightly lower levels to allow businesses to get back on their feet in these very important sectors?

Rishi Sunak: As ever, I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s advice and support. He is right: the business rates holiday we have put in place this year has provided over £10 billion of support to almost 1 million businesses. I know what a vital lifeline it is, so of course we keep all measures under review. Future fiscal policy is for Budgets, but I thank him for raising the point with me.

Richard Burgon: When I previously asked the Chancellor about furloughed workers having to survive on less than the minimum wage, his callous response was that they would be “able to work elsewhere”, yet minimum wage workers in very high virus areas whose workplaces have been forced to shut will now have to live off just two thirds of the minimum wage. That is just £5.81 per hour—the minimum wage level of 11 years ago. Will the Chancellor introduce a wage floor so no such worker has to live off less than the minimum wage?

Rishi Sunak: We have addressed this point before, but I am happy to repeat it. Very low-paid workers will benefit from the flexibility and responsiveness of universal credit, and that is where the universal credit taper works. The way it works is that it will replace the falls in income with a top-up in universal credit worth about 63p in the pound. For example, a single person in their late 20s, working in hospitality and renting privately in a flat in a northern city, will receive about 92% of their original income on an after tax and after benefits basis.

Gareth Davies: I too warmly welcome the Chancellor’s statement today. Does he agree with me that it is vital and absolutely right that we take this decisive action to support businesses and jobs today, but it is also important that we are mindful of the sustainability of public finances for tomorrow?

Rishi Sunak: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He will have seen the figures from this week detailing the difficult situation of our public finances, with the scale of the borrowing and the scale of the increase in our debt this year. While right now our primary focus should be on supporting jobs and employment, given the restrictions in place, it is always right that we have one eye on the future. We must be careful not to mortgage our children’s futures, and that is why our interventions will be done in a way that is sustainable and affordable for the long term to ensure that we live within our means over time.

Andrew Gwynne: I was critical of the Chancellor on Tuesday, so I want to thank him for listening and acting on one of the key asks of all Greater Manchester MPs, of all the council leaders in our city region and, yes, of our Mayor, Andy Burnham, too. It was that our businesses and supply chains should be supported in tier 2, because we have had 12 weeks of these measures with no help and no support, and many really are struggling as we tip into a  stricter tier 3. For some it will be too late, but I thank him for making this retrospective. How soon will these funds be released, because it is pressing, and what calculation has he made of the 12-week entitlement for Greater Manchester businesses?

Rishi Sunak: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments. I would tell him that we will work very quickly with the Valuation Office Agency to calculate the value of those grants; we are just working through that detail. I hope to be able to provide him and all Manchester MPs with the figures as soon as possible, and we will of course release that funding as quickly as we have calculated the values.

Saqib Bhatti: On behalf of my constituents, may I thank the Chancellor for this comprehensive economic package? Clearly, he is a Chancellor who listens and I thank him for that. Will he join me in commending Andy Street, the Mayor of the West Midlands, who has campaigned passionately for further support? He is not a showboater; he just gets on with the job and gets things done.

Rishi Sunak: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am always grateful to hear from Mayor Andy Street. Andy has rightly put on the agenda the situation for businesses, especially hospitality businesses, in tier 2 areas, which my hon. Friend represents, and wanted me to be aware of what was happening. I am glad that today’s set of measures will make a difference to both my hon. Friend and Andy’s wider set of businesses and, I know, to many other businesses across the country.

Bill Esterson: The Chancellor says that he will support only viable businesses. Kim runs a wedding photography business. She is self-employed and works from home and, like millions of people, she has not qualified for any of the measures that the Chancellor has announced. Weddings will need photographers again, and Kim already has 71 bookings for next year. Why is the Chancellor’s message to Kim, and millions like her, that he thinks her business is not viable?

Rishi Sunak: If the hon. Member wants to write to me with Kim’s particular circumstances, I would be happy to see what various things we have done that may be of benefit to her and her business.

Tom Hunt: I welcome this statement. It will ensure that the hospitality sector, even in those areas with much greater restrictions than my own, can hopefully keep going and come through this, as opposed to the approach of the Labour party, which would hammer the hospitality sector, even in areas such as mine, in Ipswich, where we currently have very low levels of covid. It will also give some reassurance to my constituents that, if the worst comes to the worst and cases increase, there is that additional support in place. One thing that these grants could be used on is winter heaters and gazebos, because we can still socialise outside in the winter months. I just wondered what the Chancellor’s thoughts were on that.

Rishi Sunak: That is an interesting idea. Obviously, for areas in tier 3, the local authorities are receiving funding to use at their discretion. It may well be that that is an idea they want to take up. Of course, for both  open and closed businesses in tiers 2 or 3, I have announced a series of grants today and it will be up to those businesses to use them on whatever they want. Primarily, we assume that they will use them to cover the fixed costs of things such as rent, but, of course, it will be up to them what they use them for. None the less, my hon. Friend makes a good suggestion, which, together with our planning changes, means that those businesses can serve as many customers as possible, even though they face restrictions at the moment.

Felicity Buchan: I warmly welcome the additional support for tier 2 areas, such as my constituency in London. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we need to get London back into tier 1 as soon as possible as London is the engine of this country’s economy, accounting for 25% of all tax revenue?

Rishi Sunak: My hon. Friend is a rightly proud champion of her businesses in central London. Obviously, what is happening not just to our capital city but to all our city centres is incredibly sad. We all want to see them springing back to life and vibrancy. Hopefully, the measures that we have announced today will provide some support and breathing space to help them get through a difficult period until they can get back on their feet and do exactly what we want them to do, which is return to where they were—bustling and welcoming us all back into their shops and restaurants.

Stella Creasy: The Chancellor says that he has been talking to the people who are worried about their livelihoods and the businesses facing redundancy, so he will know that those redundancies are falling particularly heavily on mums. We know from the data produced by the Office for National Statistics last month that 79% of the increase in redundancies has come from women, and we know that it is mums who are losing their jobs, but his Department is sitting on £1.7 billion of unspent tax-free childcare funding. Will he use that money to ensure that our childcare sector can support every parent who wants to get back to work and to stop the tsunami of unemployment that we are about to face?

Rishi Sunak: The hon. Lady is right to highlight the particular importance of good-quality childcare, which, as she said, enables mums to be able to protect their employment. I am happy to look at the specific suggestion that she mentioned, but I think that we have recently made—in the previous Budget and before—some changes to the operation of tax-free childcare, so that it is more available to more people. She is right that the take-up has not been what was forecast, which is why we put the changes in place to broaden the approach and broaden the eligibility for it, but I am happy to look at her specific suggestion.

Ben Spencer: I thank my right hon. Friend for the provisions announced today, which I very much welcome. My constituency is partly in tier 1 and partly in tier 2, and I especially welcome the support for tier 2 areas, but also across the board into tier 1. Many constituents who work in the wedding and events sector, or across its supply chains, have contacted me with difficulties due to restrictions,  uncertainty and a drop in trade. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that today’s announcement will also support the events sector and, crucially, those working across its supply chain?

Rishi Sunak: It is precisely because we took a generous and universal approach to eligibility for the job support scheme, with its new generosity, that supply chains of all affected industries will be able to benefit. There were some calls that it should only be targeted at those in tier 2 areas, or, for example, only those in hospitality. We have taken the decision to ensure that the new job support scheme, with its new generosity, is available to all employers and all employees wherever they are in the UK. I think that will be of benefit to the industries and businesses that my hon. Friend mentioned.

Clive Efford: There is no change in this announcement for people who are self-employed. A constituent of mine has contacted me. Back in March, she was assessed as earning too much to qualify for any assistance. Her income has now been revised down, but there is no way for her to appeal that original decision. This is no way to treat self-employed people. Can the Chancellor go away and look at these people who have fallen through the net?

Rishi Sunak: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman missed that part of the statement; I apologise if it was not clear, but we have doubled the value of the self-employed grants that will be paid in the winter from 20% to 40%, mirroring the increase in the Government’s support for those who are in employment and ensuring parity between self-employed and employed. As I have said, that is generous and comprehensive. With regard to the income threshold, yes, the hon. Gentleman is right; we have decided to target support for the self-employed at those who earn less than £50,000. That is 95% of all those who are majority self-employed. The average income of those 5% who are not included is about £200,000.

Martin Vickers: I welcome the package announced by my right hon. Friend; he has quite rightly adapted the support that he is providing to the changing circumstances. May I look beyond the pandemic to the economic recovery, and urge continued support for my constituency in respect of the Greater Grimsby town deal? We also need broadband connectivity—and let me give a special mention in that regard for the village of Wold Newton. I know that he will be disappointed if I do not also mention free port status for Immingham and the Humber ports.

Rishi Sunak: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is important that we can look through this crisis to our economic recovery. I know that his area will play a starring role in helping to drive that recovery, whether that is through Grimsby or a free port in Immingham. I am pleased to say that we are making good progress on the free port process. I hope to announce the bidding process very soon, and look forward to receiving his local area’s application when the time is right.

Dave Doogan: The nature of the Government’s interventions in this crisis are reactionary and there are significant gaps in the support. A principal casualty of those gaps are the 3 million excluded, who have had a devastating summer. The Chancellor has  used the word “generous” over 20 times in this statement, so I urge him to advise me what support he will now give to the 3 million excluded. Will he do them the service not of telling us how he has supported other people, but of telling us what he will do for them?

Rishi Sunak: The circumstances of everyone who is self-employed will be different. It may well be that they own a business premises, which will benefit from business rates relief or a cash grant. It may well be that they have used the bounce back loan scheme, as over a million small businesses have. It may be that they are benefiting from the enhanced welfare system and the improvements to universal credit and the local housing allowance. Or it may be that they are the self-employed people who today will benefit from a doubling of the grant that I have announced, which will be up to over £3,700 this Christmas. This remains one of the most comprehensive packages of support for those who are self-employed anywhere in the world.

Kieran Mullan: On behalf of the Hop Pole pub in Wistaston, Hickory’s Smokehouse in Shavington, Pillory House in Nantwich, Giovanni’s in Crewe and Eight Farmers in Leighton, all of whom have been telling about the difficulties that they have been facing, I thank the Chancellor for the support measures that he has announced today, which will have a huge impact on their ability to get through this troubling time. Will he confirm when the support will be available and whether it will be backdated for those of us who have been in tier 2 for some time?

Rishi Sunak: If we are ending on this note, my hon. Friend has made me exceptionally hungry to hear that roll-call of great-sounding restaurants, which I hope I have a chance to visit with him. I can gladly give him that reassurance. We will be backdating the tier 2 grant support to the time that those restrictions were put in place, and I hope that will be of benefit to all the restaurants that he mentioned and many more small businesses in his constituency.

Royal Assent

Lindsay Hoyle: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that Her Majesty has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
Sentencing Act 2020
Extradition (Provisional Arrest) Act 2020.
In order to allow the safe exit of hon. Members participating in this item of business and the safe arrival of those participating in the next, I suspend the House for a few minutes.
Sitting suspended.

Covid-19: Disparate Impact

Kemi Badenoch: With permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement. I came before the House on 4 June, just after Public Health England had published its report “Covid 19: review of disparities in risks and outcomes”, as the Prime Minister had asked me to lead the cross-Government work to address the findings of that review. I return today to update the House on the progress I have made and to announce publication of my first quarterly report to the Prime Minister.
My work to date has focused on the impact of covid-19 on ethnic minority people. There is a wider strand of work within Government that is considering other groups that may have been particularly impacted by covid, such as disabled people, and I will include updates on that wider work in future reports. My report summarises the significant measures that Government Departments and their agencies have to date put in place to mitigate the disproportionate impacts of covid-19.
I have spoken with Mr Speaker and many members of the House staff about how impressed I have been with the measures put in place by the parliamentary authorities to protect all of us who use the parliamentary estate. It is clear that a lot of good work is under way. For example, as we have reported in Parliament, more than 95% of frontline NHS workers from an ethnic minority background have had a risk assessment in the workplace to ensure good understanding of the necessary mitigating interventions in place. The NHS is working hard to restore services inclusively so that they are used by those in greatest need, with new monitoring of service use and outcomes among those from the most deprived neighbourhoods and from black and Asian groups. We issued revised guidance to employers in July and again in September, highlighting the findings of the PHE review and explaining how to make workplaces covid secure.
We also reached out to all parts of the community through our information campaign. From March to July, we spent an additional £4 million to reach ethnic minority people through tailored messaging, strategically chosen channels and trusted voices. We have published messaging in well over 600 publications, including those that have readerships with a high proportion of ethnic minority people. We have reached more than 5 million people through the ethnic minority influencer programme. We have translated key public health messages into numerous languages, which initiated a marked improvement in recognition of our crucial “Stay alert” campaign.
My report summarises how the NHS, Public Health England and others are implementing the recommendations from the summary of the rapid literature review and stakeholder engagement work led by Professor Kevin Fenton. The PHE review indicated that people from ethnic minority backgrounds were disproportionately impacted by covid-19. It told us what the disparities in risks and outcomes were, but not why they had arisen and therefore it did not make any recommendations. It is therefore imperative that we understand the key drivers of the disparities and the relationships between the different risk factors to ensure that our response is as effective as possible.
That response has involved collaboration across Government, the Office for National Statistics and with universities and researchers. It includes some of the six new research projects to improve our understanding of the links between covid-19 and ethnicity, which received £4.3 million in Government funding in July. The research projects will give us new information on a range of issues, including the impact of the virus on migrant and refugee groups and the prevalence of covid-19 among ethnic minority health workers. The projects will also help to develop targeted digital health messages in partnership with ethnic minority communities. They will also provide a new framework to ensure the representation of ethnic minorities in clinical trials that are testing new treatments and vaccines for covid-19.
We now know much more about the impact of the virus than we did in June. We know more in particular about why people from ethnic minority backgrounds are more likely to be infected and die from covid. The current evidence shows that it is a range of socioeconomic and geographical factors, such as occupational exposure, population density, household composition and pre-existing health conditions, that contribute to the higher infection and mortality rates for ethnic minority groups. However, according to the latest evidence, part of the excess risk remains unexplained for some groups and further analysis of the potential risk factors is planned for the coming months.
What has emerged is that interventions across the entire population are most likely to disproportionately benefit ethnic minorities and are least likely to attach damaging stigma. That is best captured through our experience of the national lockdown and the shielding programme.
As the chief medical officer has said, we must assess the impact of covid-19 based on all-cause mortality to incorporate its indirect impact. On that specific metric, early evidence suggests that there is no disproportionate impact across different ethnic groups. Indeed, the OpenSAFELY study of 17 million adults from 1 February to 3 August concluded that
“data from England and Scotland has shown that most ethnic minority groups have both better overall health and lower rates of all-cause mortality than white groups.”
The evidence base is growing fast and we will continue to work with academics and the SAGE ethnicity sub-group to improve our understanding of the relationship between covid-19 and ethnicity.
I am particularly keen to deepen our understanding of how comorbidities interact with occupational exposure. This is a major gap identified by several studies to date and may well account for the residual risk between different ethnic groups of poorer outcomes from covid-19. In general, we must move away from seeing covid-19 as something that affects discrete groups in society and towards helping individuals understand their own particular risk profile as the evidence base grows.
Looking forward, we know that a vaccine is likely to present a long-term protection against this deadly disease. The only way to check how well a coronavirus vaccine works is to carry out large-scale clinical trials involving a diverse group of thousands of people. That is why I am leading by example and participating in a trial at Guy’s and St. Thomas’ hospital. Just last week, I wrote  to all colleagues urging them to encourage more of their ethnic minority constituents to sign up to the NHS vaccine registry as these groups are still under-represented in vaccine trials.
We have made good progress, but more needs to be done. In particular, we need to work with local communities to protect the most vulnerable. I am therefore announcing today a new community champions scheme that includes up to £25 million in funding to local authorities and the voluntary and community sector. This will help to improve the reach of official public health guidance and other messaging or communications about the virus into specific places and groups most at risk from covid-19. Our community champions funding will support those groups at greater risk of this disease to ensure that key public health advice is understood and safer behaviours are followed. This will help to rebuild trust, reduce transmission and ultimately play a part in helping to lower death rates in the targeted areas and beyond.
Councils have been working tirelessly to support and engage their communities through this crisis. They know how to this best. The funding for a targeted group of councils will enable them to do more of what they know works but also to go further by enhancing existing schemes. Learning from the community champions scheme will be shared with all councils and across all relevant Government Departments, enabling Government and local authorities to hear directly from individuals and communities on the impact of the crisis.
There are other measures we can take to protect those most at risk, particularly those from minority groups. So in my report to the Prime Minister I outlined a number of recommendations and next steps. These include mandating the recording of ethnicity data as part of the death certification process, as this is only way we will be able to establish a complete picture of the impact of the virus on ethnic minority groups; appointing two expert advisers on covid and ethnicity who will bring expertise from the fields of medicine, epidemiology and clinical research to the Government’s work going forward, ensuring that new evidence uncovered during this review relating to the extremely clinically vulnerable is incorporated into health policy; and supporting the development and deployment of a risk model to understand individual risk from research commissioned by the CMO. I also want us to capture the good work being done by local authorities and directors of public health so that we can learn the lessons of what works at a local level. Therefore, there will be a rapid light-touch review of local authority action to support ethnic minority communities.
The package of measures I have announced today are the first steps in my year-long review. They will give us a better insight into how the virus is impacting ethnic minority groups, how we can best protect those who may be most at risk and how we can address long-standing public health inequalities. I will report back to the House with a further update at the end of the next quarter.

Marsha de Cordova: I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement.
Coronavirus continues to expose deep-rooted structural inequalities in our society, and these drive the health inequalities. Today, the Minister has published her first quarterly report on progress into addressing covid health  inequalities, but it is now well over four months since both Public Health England reviews were published. The country is now sadly well into a second wave of the virus, yet we are still lacking a forward-looking national strategy and action plan.
Just this week the Institute for Public Policy Research and the Runnymede Trust showed that well over 2,000 black and south Asian deaths could have been avoided during the first wave of the pandemic if those populations did not experience a higher risk of death from covid-19, and that 58,000 people would have died in the first wave if the white population experienced the same risk of death from covid as our black populations. The Government must be prepared to admit and act on the root causes of the hugely disproportionate impact that coronavirus has had on our black and ethnic minority communities.
I welcome the Government’s decision to make the recording of ethnicity as part of the death certificate process mandatory, but collecting data is only one part of what needs to be done. The Minister mentions that there will be further research, but we do not know when this research will report or how quickly the Government will act on its findings. It is also unclear how the Government can measure or demonstrate the effectiveness of their public health communications for diverse communities and ensure that such communications are inclusive and accessible. Given the scale and the urgency of this crisis, the Government have fallen short of doing what is needed.
This first quarterly report does not commit to much that is quantifiable or timed, so I ask the Minister these questions as a matter of urgency. She mentions that she will be looking into the clinical groups of people who are severely in need of support. When will that review take place, and when will those groups be added to the list of those who are shielding?
Where is the Government’s plan of action to address the long-term structural inequalities, such as the deep-rooted inequalities in housing and employment, including occupational discrimination? Where is the Government’s implementation plan, with milestones, for protecting our black, Asian and ethnic minorities during this pandemic? Which local authorities will receive some of that £25 million funding for the community champions programme, and how did the Government reach that amount? How will that funding be allocated to the local authorities and what will the criteria be?
Will the Minister now publish in full any or all of the equality impact assessments of the likely impact on our black, Asian and minority ethnic communities of the Government’s covid-19 responses? It is absolutely right that the NHS has carried out 90% of its occupational risk assessments, but why have the Government updated the guidance only for employers, rather than putting in place proper checks and balances to ensure that our workers are being protected? Finally, why has it taken so long for the Government to act on the disproportionate impact that covid-19 is having on our ethnic minority communities? The volume of evidence that we have seen has been coming forward to us for months. We are already in the second wave, and this is now beyond urgent.

Kemi Badenoch: It does not appear to me that the hon. Lady has actually read the statement that I sent to her. She asks about what the Government are doing. I have just given a statement about what the Government have been doing over four months.
I think we need to restate this: we did not wait until today to say what we were going to do. As soon as we discovered this disproportionate impact, actions were put in place. The hon. Lady talks about us not issuing revised guidance to employers, but we did that in July and, as I said in my statement, we did it again in September, highlighting the findings of the PHE review and explaining how to make workplaces covid-secure. We required passengers to wear a face covering in taxis and private hire vehicles, and we asked this to be done for hospitality staff, many of whom are from ethnic minority backgrounds. We provided £4.3 million in funding for six new projects. We provided a range of guidance to support those living in multi-generational households. We spent an additional £4 million on reaching ethnic minority people through tailored messaging, strategically chosen channels and trusted voic-es.
The hon. Lady talks about the NHS guidance and risk assessments as though that was the only thing we have done. We have been implementing new payments for people in low-income areas with high rates of covid-19 who need to self-isolate and cannot work from home. What we are not going to do—it is clear what the hon. Lady and her party are expecting—is to implement segregated policies for people from ethnic minority backgrounds. What we are doing is looking at risk groups, but tailoring support for the whole population.
The hon. Lady talks about the IPPR report, and my answer is that I do not recognise those figures. Its methodology was not transparent, and our statisticians in the Cabinet Office could not understand where it got the numbers from. I found the presentation scaremongering and alarming. It is really important to me that we let people have trust and faith in the Government, and that we let them know what we are doing. That is why I am standing here in Parliament giving this oral statement, rather than just making a report to the Prime Minister.
The hon. Lady talks about what the Government have done. I wrote a letter to every single Member of Parliament asking them to share with ethnic minorities and their communities how they can join the national vaccine register, and I have been taking vaccines myself. Opposition Members have not been doing so. Especially when it comes to the hon. Lady, knowing that she has a large ethnic minority population in her community, what has she done to tell them to join the national vaccine register? We have not seen anything to that effect on her social media. It would be good if Opposition Members showed us that they are looking to help people, rather than looking for reasons to bash the Government. We must not politicise covid-19.

Caroline Nokes: I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for advance sight of her statement, which arrived while I was at a conference with Dr Tony Sewell, the chair of the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities. His passion for ensuring that there is no stigma is equalled only by that of my hon. Friend. I welcome her commitment to mandatory recording of ethnicity data on death certificates, but could I ask her to give us a little more information about the commitment on new evidence relating to the clinically extremely vulnerable? Exactly how will that be incorporated into health policy, and by when?

Kemi Badenoch: I thank my right hon. Friend for that question. That is something that should happen right now. We want to make sure that things do not happen separately in Government, and I have been very keen to ensure that there is no silo working. A frequent problem is that different Departments do different things, and they often duplicate information and work, so we have been at great pains to make sure that that does not happen.
I share every single thing that I do with Ministers across Departments. We have a group of Ministers who look at equalities in the Department for Work and Pensions, the Department of Health and Social Care and the Department for Education, and we feed into that group everything that we learn. The findings from the race disparity unit and ONS research are fed in as those Ministers make policy, whether in health or otherwise. We do not want this to be a separate Government project that requires new oversight; we all have to work together, and that is how I plan to do it.

Anne McLaughlin: I thank the Minister for her statement. I am interested in everything that it contains, and I commend her for volunteering to be part of the vaccine programme.
I want to raise two issues—possibly three, if I have time. Minority ethnic women are particularly over-represented in frontline care roles, so they are at particular risk of job disruption, as highlighted in a report by Close the Gap. Why have the UK Government not matched the Scottish Government’s action of a 3.3% wage increase for all adult social care workers to ensure that at least the real living wage is paid across frontline care, covering all hours worked, including sleepovers?
The Minister said that help that is provided across the population disproportionately benefits black, Asian and minority ethnic people, but that does not apply to those who have no recourse to public funds. I know that she has spoken about this before, but most people who have no recourse to public funds are from black, Asian and minority ethnic communities. Will she support our calls to enable them to get support?
Finally, I note that the Minister said that she would include in future reports updates on other groups who are disproportionately impacted, and I want to make sure that older people are one of those groups. We know that people living in poverty are disproportionately impacted, and one way to lift older people out of poverty is to make sure that they know about pension credit, and to make it as easy as possible to apply for. The more voices across this House and across the Departments who commit to ensuring that older people know about the £2 billion-plus that is unclaimed every year in these islands, the better. I hope that she will commit to paying particular attention to that.

Kemi Badenoch: I thank the hon. Lady for her questions. She is absolutely right to mention older people, who are the most disproportionately impacted group. Someone who is over 70 or 80 is 80 times more likely to have the disease, whereas someone from an ethnic minority background is between 1.2 and 1.8 times more likely to have it. We must keep this in perspective, and we are looking at everybody who is impacted and vulnerable in whatever way.
The hon. Lady asks about money we are spending on adult health and social care. We are spending an unprecedented amount in the pandemic. We have targeted as much money as we possibly can to all the groups we believe need it. It may not be exactly what people asked for, but we are looking at decisions in the round to ensure that we are covering all groups.

David Davis: I congratulate the Minister on a comprehensive report. She has clearly done a great job of identifying the numerous factors that exacerbate the problem and acting rapidly on them. However, of the first 26 doctors in the national health service to die of covid-19, 25 were from minority ethnic backgrounds. Those doctors will have been comparatively well paid, so poverty cannot be the full explanation.
Vitamin D deficiency is prevalent across virtually all the groups who suffer disproportionately from covid-19, from the elderly to the obese, diabetics and ethnic minority communities. Today’s review considers only two studies on vitamin D and does not consider a huge range of new evidence that has come out in the last couple of months that shows powerful links. Will the Minister commit as her colleagues at the Department of Health and Social Care have done and look at the latest evidence on this matter?

Kemi Badenoch: It was the number of ethnic minority doctors who died right at the beginning of the pandemic that alerted us to this issue. We did look across a range of issues to see why that was the case. I remind my right hon. Friend about occupational exposure, which we believe is the biggest cause, and those doctors were the most exposed, probably doing the shifts right before we knew what was going on and catching the virus. We looked at vitamin D. The SAGE report from 23 September shows that it looked at vitamin D studies to see if it had had an effect and did not find any relationship.
We have found that there is a small residual risk, and I am looking at the interaction between comorbidities and occupational exposure, which we think provides the explanation. We had a second literature review and stakeholder engagement report where many people talked about their experiences of systemic racism—I asked the Race Disparity Unit specifically to look at that—but the findings were that systemic racism did not explain that. For example, when we take into account comorbidities, Bangladeshi women and white women have the same rates of mortality. Systemic racism also does not explain the differences between groups, such as black Africans and black Caribbeans. If it was systemic racism, we would expect the figures to match and they do not.
There is still quite a lot going on as we look at the socioeconomic and geographical factors, occupational exposure, population density, household composition and pre-existing health conditions. We will continue to do this work. Remember that this is the first report, not the last, and the review will be ongoing.

Tan Dhesi: Having volunteered in recent months to become a community champion locally, I welcome the additional funding announced by the Minister and sincerely hope that our excellent scheme in Slough will be able to gain some of that funding. The report mentions a SAGE sub-group on ethnicity. What are its terms of reference, membership and programme of work?

Kemi Badenoch: The SAGE sub-group is looking at this issue. Not all of our research is original—much of what we have found out has come from that sub-group. Emran Mian has been leading from within that sub-group and is working with us. I am afraid that I do not have the sub-group’s terms of reference, but I will write to the hon. Member on that to provide more information. However, we are very supportive of the work of all community champions, and the work he is doing in Slough is very important. If it is possible, we will ensure that he can access the community champions fund. He will have to apply through the regular process, but we want to do as much as we can to support MPs across the House.[Official Report, 5 November 2020, Vol. 683, c. 6MC.]

Elliot Colburn: I join my hon. Friend the Minister in encouraging Carshalton and Wallington residents to follow her lead and volunteer for vaccine trials. I welcome her statement, including the appointment of independent experts and the mandatory reporting of ethnicity on death certificates. Does she agree that that gives us the opportunity to learn a lot more about the impact of covid on our black, Asian and minority ethnic constituents? Will she say a little more about how that data will be used to improve health outcomes for everyone in the country?

Kemi Badenoch: The reason I have asked that we mandate recording is that that was one of the gaps identified. We did not get a full picture of what was going on, and we need to have a full picture. As my hon. Friend rightly says, everything we are doing will help the whole population. We are not segregating people on the basis of this disease. Mandating ethnicity data will not just help ethnic minority populations; it will help everybody.

Tony Lloyd: I am sure the Minister will be well aware of the research by the Financial Conduct Authority showing that while one in three of our fellow citizens has seen an income cut because of covid, that rises to 40% among black, Asian and minority ethnic communities. The impact is not just on individuals or even households: where there is a concentration of people from BAME backgrounds, it affects the much wider community. What research will the Minister engage in on the economic impact, because we know that economic collapse leads to lower mental and physical health and all the other social aspects that come with it?

Kemi Badenoch: That would be outside the terms of reference of the review that I am leading over the year. However, as a Treasury Minister, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we have distributional analysis that comes out with all this information and influences all the policies that we put out in terms of economic interventions for specific groups.

Philip Hollobone: I commend my hon. Friend for her statement and for the report. Given the high level of concern about the impact of covid-19 on ethnic minorities, and given that a vaccine will be a very large part of the solution to the pandemic, why does she think there has been such a disproportionately low number of ethnic minority people coming forward to volunteer for the NHS vaccine registry?

Kemi Badenoch: That is an excellent question. I have been particularly disappointed at the amount of anti-vaxxer disinformation campaigns that are out there. I have received three separate messages myself from people telling ethnic minorities not to take part in vaccine trials. I am really sorry to say that an Opposition Member said in this House that the Government were using ethnic minorities as cannon fodder in their battle against coronavirus—one of the worst things that I have ever heard said in this House. That really causes division and tension. We need people to have faith in the Government. We need people to have faith in our health service and trust it in order to take part in things like vaccine trials. I hope that the work we are doing will go some way towards remedying some of the scaremongering.

Munira Wilson: I welcome the Minister’s acknowledgement early on in her statement of the disproportionate impact of covid on disabled people. She said that work is ongoing and there will be future reports, but I hope she will agree that we need urgent action. She will know that disabled people are 11 times more likely to die from coronavirus. We have also heard very disturbing reports of “do not resuscitate” orders being put in place, particularly for those with learning difficulties, without consultation with their families. I recognise that the Care Quality Commission is investigating this, but will she commit to ending this injustice urgently?

Kemi Badenoch: The Government rightly take very seriously the outcomes for those with disabilities. The largest disparities were by age for both males and females, done by gender. However, there is a wider strand of work that the hon. Lady references, where this will be looked into. We cannot allow any part of the population to feel that they have been forgotten; they have not. I can assure her that we are taking this seriously, not just in the equality hub but in the Department for Work and Pensions.

Bob Blackman: My hon. Friend will know that my constituency is home to a wide variety of people from different nationalities and ethnic backgrounds, particularly from the Indian subcontinent. Very sadly, we have seen many deaths, particularly among people from the Indian subcontinent. One of the reasons suggested for this is one of the virtues of that community—namely, that they often have grandparents, parents and children living in the same household, where the grandparents look after the children when they come home from school, and the parents go to work and commute, particularly into central London. In those instances, many people seem to have been infected with the disease and very sadly died. Will my hon. Friend look at this particular issue to see whether it is that mixing of people that is causing so many problems among our ethnic minority friends?

Kemi Badenoch: My hon. Friend is right. Household composition was definitely one of the things that we looked at; it was identified as a factor, and we are looking further into its significance. In the interim, the Government have provided a range of guidance to support those who are living in multigenerational housing, alongside detailed advice to employers and key workers on how they can protect themselves. We will continue  to ensure that our guidance is clear, enables people to  protect themselves adequately and includes guidance for those who are shielding. To support this, we have given councils an additional £1.6 billion of the covid budget fund to help them to protect and support people during this national emergency. As I always say, the Government will do everything that we can, but we cannot do everything, which why we need people to know how they can protect themselves.

Lilian Greenwood: Since the start of the covid pandemic, the all-party parliamentary group on deafness has repeatedly called on Ministers to ensure that all communications are accessible and inclusive, but on Monday we saw reports that deaf children are being deprived of their access to education. I note that the Minister has promised future updates, but is the Race Disparity Unit working across Government to ensure that all communications are accessible to deaf and blind people? What is she doing to ensure that black, Asian and minority ethnic disabled people are not doubly disadvantaged by the measures needed to control the virus?

Kemi Badenoch: The hon. Lady is absolutely right. This is an issue that we have looked at; for instance, the Government have looked at sourcing personal protective equipment for people who need to lip read, so that they can continue to communicate. She is also right to point out that some people are affected in multiple ways, but looking at each issue separately does not mean that one aspect will be forgotten. They will be helped by all the separate work that is being done across the board to look at vulnerability.

Crispin Blunt: I thank my hon. Friend for her comprehensive statement; I note that she seems to be on a bit of a roll in the Chamber this week. Will she recognise that there remains a paucity of data around health outcomes for LGBT people, perhaps not least in respect of the intersectionality with BAME people in respect of covid? The data deficit was identified in the LGBT action plan. Will she recommit the Government to securing the data, not least by ensuring that future public health surveys record data on all protected characteristics?

Kemi Badenoch: My hon. Friend is right that we are looking across the board, but I just remind him that we are looking at those who have been most disproportionately affected and are most vulnerable. Although we have not found that LGBT groups specifically have been disproportionately affected, we know that they are losing out where healthcare services have been unavailable because they have had to close or provide other services to deal with the pandemic. We are looking to improve that, but the review that I am carrying out looks specifically at vulnerability and disproportionate impact.

Hywel Williams: I am glad that information is available in different languages; real language choice provides a clear functional gain, as we know in Wales. However, I am against shifting away from seeing the pandemic as affecting discrete groups. Will the Minister commit the Government to continuing and extending economic support as further evidence reveals the groups who have been hardest hit?

Kemi Badenoch: The hon. Gentleman is right to speak of making sure that people have access to all the information available. Much of the work that we have been doing has been with PHE, which looks mainly at England, but I will find out what information I can provide about the work that is being done in Wales. The Government are looking to ensure that everybody has access to the information, and we are working with the devolved nations to make sure that they have examples of the best practice that is happening across the board.

Chris Green: I thank my hon. Friend for her statement, which highlights a whole range of factors that are distributed right across the country. We know and understand the cost of covid to a certain extent, but there is also the cost of the lockdown. National figures, for example, show reduced GP appointments, cancer screening and hip operations. Will my hon. Friend commit to working with ministerial colleagues to produce a constituency by constituency covid lockdown health impact assessment, because in order to represent our constituents we have to have that local data?

Kemi Badenoch: That is an interesting suggestion. I believe that information like that exists. I am happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss the issue further, to understand exactly what it is that he is looking for and see if we can do something to produce information like that.

Steven Bonnar: With data showing that only one in 10 lower earners can work from home and that 69% of low earners are women, women have clearly started this crisis from a position of economic disadvantage. In many areas they have led the fight against coronavirus, but millions of women are stuck in low-paid and insecure jobs. Why, then, according to Business in the Community, have the Government chosen to exempt companies from having to file any gender pay gap data this year, resulting in only half of businesses actually doing so?

Kemi Badenoch: The reason we suspended gender pay gap reporting is that it was right in the middle of the pandemic and we wanted to reduce burdens on businesses that were facing an unprecedented situation. We were not going to put any additional burdens on them. Companies that are able to do so can continue to carry out their gender pay gap reporting, but I remind the hon. Gentleman that this review is about those who are affected most disproportionately medically, and at the moment that is actually men, not women.

Henry Smith: I very much commend my hon. Friend on her statement. The educational attainment of white working-class boys is among the lowest, and that has only been exacerbated by the effects of covid-19 and their not being able to be in school. What discussions has she had with our right hon. Friend the Education Secretary to ensure that any child from any background can achieve and will not be left behind, for the future wellbeing of our country?

Kemi Badenoch: My hon. Friend is right to allude to the importance to children and young people of being in school. The Government have been very clear that limiting attendance at school should be a last resort,  even in areas where the local alert level is high or very high. We have been providing laptops to the most disadvantaged pupils, and 4G routers to families who do not already have mobile or broadband, for example. In the unlikely event that certain schools will need to reduce attendance, we are also helping them to deliver quality remote education. More broadly, on ethnic disparities and attainment, the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities, announced by the Prime Minister in June, will look at outcomes for the whole population, and it is looking specifically at education.

Stephen Doughty: I hope that the Minister has also been liaising with my constituency colleague, the Minister for Health in Wales, Vaughan Gething, on the work he has been doing on these issues. He was one of the first to identify them, set up a taskforce and put in place measures to address what he said in his recent statement was a very clear
“adverse and disproportionate impact on people from BAME communities.”
The evidence from the UK Intensive Care National Audit and Research Centre has shown consistently throughout the crisis that, compared with the general population, a higher frequency than expected of patients from BAME backgrounds have required critical care. The latest figure is over 30% in the past few weeks, which is very disproportionate compared with the wider population. Why does the Minister think that is happening, and is she incorporating that important research into the evidence that the Government are looking at?

Kemi Badenoch: We have been considering the factors of occupational exposure and comorbidities, but we have not finished looking at the research; there are so many research projects out there that are trying to find out exactly what is causing severeness in criticality of infection, for example. I think that the RDU has looked at that. We have taken information from across the board, across lots of universities, researchers and the ONS, and I believe that that has been fed in. If it has not, we can look to do that in the next quarter.

Claire Coutinho: Our BAME communities face a medical risk not only from covid but from the fallout from other health conditions. Does my hon. Friend agree that we should encourage the BAME community to access the treatments that are available to them, such as cancer treatment, because those are important for their health?

Kemi Badenoch: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We must reduce fear and build confidence among ethnic minority people in engaging with NHS services. Phase 3 of the NHS covid-19 response is taking urgent action to reduce health inequalities and regularly assess progress. NHS trusts are encouraged to restore services inclusively, so that they are used by those in greatest need. Covid wards and spaces are being separated, which should give people confidence to return and allow more routine procedures to continue.

Stella Creasy: The Minister mentioned further research. One area where there is very specific and clear research is pregnancy. The UK obstetric surveillance system showed that black  pregnant women were eight times more likely to be hospitalised than white pregnant women due to covid, and half of all pregnant women in hospital due to covid are from black and ethnic minority backgrounds. That research came out in May and June this year. Will she update us on what is being done to protect black pregnant women from the risks of covid and whether there will be an investigation into that specific issue?

Kemi Badenoch: I thank the hon. Lady for that question. I co-hosted a roundtable on maternal mortality rates for ethnic minority women with the Minister for Patient Safety, Mental Health and Suicide Prevention on 2 September, to develop appropriate solutions to benefit pregnant women and their babies during this period. Given that covid-19 has fundamentally changed the way that women access maternity services, the national maternity safety champion and chief midwifery officer for England published a four-point plan for all maternity services in England to follow. That includes increasing support for at-risk pregnant women, reaching out to and reassuring pregnant ethnic minority women with tailored communications, ensuring that hospitals discuss vitamin supplements and nutrition in pregnancy with all women, and ensuring that all providers record on maternity information systems the ethnicity of every woman, as well as other risk factors. This topic has been of particular interest to me, because I returned from maternity leave after having my third child this year, so it is close to my heart. I am doing quite a lot of work on it and will continue to do so.

Steven Baker: I welcome the appointment of independent experts on covid-19 and ethnicity, such as Wycombe resident Dr Raghib Ali. What main risk factors has my hon. Friend identified, working with them, to explain why BAME communities are so disproportionately affected? Will she take steps to make those risks more apparent to the individuals affected?

Kemi Badenoch: I am delighted to announce the appointment of Dr Ali and Professor Neal, specialist epidemiologists and health technology advisers who are experts on covid-19 and ethnicity. I am appointing them to provide medical expertise as critical friends, not just people to agree with everything that we say over the coming months.
On the risk factors, analysis from the ONS, PHE and academia reveal that differences in covid-19 mortality between ethnic groups were strongly associated with geographical and socioeconomic factors. The ONS found that the risk of death from covid substantially reduced when factors other than age were accounted for, but there was still a higher risk for black and Indian adults and Pakistani and Bangladeshi males. Similarly, an Oxford University study found that ethnic differences persisted even after accounting for key explanatory factors, such as the ones that I mentioned, and we are still looking at that as part of this work.

Afzal Khan: Data shows that nearly a third of covid patients admitted to intensive care since September are from black, Asian and minority ethnic backgrounds, meaning that once again, we are bearing the brunt of the coronavirus. It appears that no lessons were learned or effective actions  taken over the summer. The chair of the British Medical Association, Dr Nagpaul, has described the situation as “groundhog day”. Does the Minister recognise this failure?

Kemi Badenoch: No, I do not recognise that statement. In fact, I have had meetings with Dr Nagpaul, and we have had many discussions about further recommendations that he has given directly to me, which we have taken forward.

Peter Bone: I thank the excellent Minister for coming to the House to make this statement. I think she said that people over 70 were 80 times more likely to be affected by covid. If that is the case, what measures are the Government taking to protect people who are 70 or older? [Interruption.]

Kemi Badenoch: I might have misspoken. It might have been that people over 80 are 70 times more likely. I need to make sure I am getting the statistics right. I will confirm that for Hansard. The Government take this extremely seriously. We have made sure that people have the guidance on what to do, depending on their individual risk profile. People who are elderly, especially those who are clinically extremely vulnerable, as my hon. Friend will know, were shielded. We are making sure that information is being provided to local authorities, NHS trusts, GP surgeries and other support within the community to make sure we continue to do so. This might be something that the community champions can reinforce.

Nigel Evans: That noise may have been a passing motorbike.

Claire Hanna: It is very clear that, alongside BAME communities, women have been disproportionately impacted by the pandemic. They make up the large majority of workers in those sectors that are unable to operate and in very many cases they are obviously carrying much larger roles in caring, both informally and formally. Northern Ireland already had the lowest levels of employment for women, and that is in the context of the UK, even before the pandemic, slipping down gender inequality rankings. Will the Minister be advocating for specific targeted economic support for women to address the structural inequalities that are being very much exacerbated by covid-19?

Kemi Badenoch: The approach that the Government Equalities Office is taking is that support has to be given in the round. We are not isolated as individuals and we are certainly not segregating. On gender, for example, in the work we have been looking at in this report, it is men who are disproportionately impacted medically. Economically, depending on the sector they work in, it is women who are disproportionately impacted. We need to look at helping everybody. What we are not able to do is say—in fact, it might contravene the Equality 2010 Act—that we will give specific help to women, but not to men or to specific groups based on protected characteristics. We need to provide support to people based on need and that is what we will continue to do.

Katherine Fletcher: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the community champions scheme and on the new funding today. Our excellent Lancashire local resilience forum has been advocating for that and there is no substitute for on-the-ground intelligence. Will she ensure that the champions are prioritised for tier 3 areas such as Lancashire, to make sure we can make the most of getting the transmission rates down?

Kemi Badenoch: Evidence shows that Government covid-19 guidance is not reaching certain communities or audiences who are being disproportionately impacted. That is why we are providing up to £25 million to local authorities, and voluntary and community sectors, to improve the reach of official public health guidance and other messaging into specific places and groups most at risk—and that does include tier 3. We want to ensure that the funding is used to support communities and groups who have been shown to have suffered a disproportionate impact.

Kenny MacAskill: The Minister acknowledged that disadvantage through ethnicity can be compounded further by disadvantage through disability. In those circumstances, will she press her Government colleagues to recognise the vital need to address poverty that compounds it still further, and argue for the retention of the universal credit uplift and an extension to legacy benefits, including those for the disabled?

Kemi Badenoch: I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor have spoken about that specific issue many times in this Chamber. What I would say to the hon. Gentleman is that poverty, deprivation and various factors are contributing to health inequalities. That is something we do know. Those issues will not be solved by a year-long review. They need to be looked at across Government, as he says, and the Government are absolutely committed to that. We talk over and over again about levelling up. That is absolutely the ambition of this Government and we will do it in the ways that we believe are best.

Gagan Mohindra: I welcome the update from my hon. Friend and applaud her on the excellent work she is leading in this arena. Will she tell the House what steps she is taking to improve public health communication, especially to those communities that are normally harder to reach?

Kemi Badenoch: We have worked with the covid comms hub in the Cabinet Office and ministerial colleagues to build on the way public health messages are delivered effectively to ethnic minority people. In addition to the central marketing campaign, we have spent approximately £4 million to reach ethnic minority people through tailored messaging, strategically chosen channels and trusted voices. Additional funding and resources from the central campaign are also used to reach communities in specific regions, supporting local authorities to deliver bespoke translated material on request.

James Murray: On 3 May, Ranjith Chandrapala, a bus driver from Hanwell in my constituency, became one of the many BAME frontline workers to die of covid-19. Since then, I have asked the Chancellor and the Transport Secretary to  extend the Government’s covid-19 life assurance scheme for families of health and care workers to others, including the families of bus drivers, such as Ranjith’s. Unfortunately, I have received only promises that support for key workers will continue to be reviewed. As the Minister mentioned that today’s report highlights a significant occupational exposure, will she commit to meet me and Ranjith’s family to discuss how we can ensure that this scheme is extended?

Kemi Badenoch: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question and share the deep sympathy he has for the suffering of his constituents. All of us, across the House, are seeing this. I have had cases such as this in my constituency and they are devastating and heartbreaking. I know that many Members across the House have lots of suggestions for specific interventions we can make. I do not stand here just as an Equalities Minister and a Treasury Minister. We have said we are going to do whatever it takes, but we cannot do everything that everyone likes. If he would write to me on the issue—I have not had sight of this—perhaps I will be able to provide him with further information.

Selaine Saxby: In our continued battle against covid-19, we have become much more knowledgeable about this terrible disease. However, what remains unclear is why some people are more at risk than others, including the more elderly residents of North Devon. Does my hon. Friend agree that if we are to tackle this virus effectively, it is essential that we understand the key drivers of its disproportionate impact?

Kemi Badenoch: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. I like re-emphasising that we should not jump to conclusions—we need to know why. If we misdiagnose, we are not able to solve the problem. We need to find out the exact reasons why things are occurring so that we can have the right solutions.

Lyn Brown: I totally and utterly agree with that. I thank the Minister for her statement and promise to read it carefully after today in order to work out what I can personally do in my constituency to aid this work. In June, I urged the Government to act upon the unequal risks before the second wave, and I pointed out that black and Asian people were not properly represented in the clinical trials. The second wave is here and the data has shown that the same inequalities are occurring. So will the Minister assure me and my constituents that from now on research projects and clinical trials will have the appropriate numbers of people from black and minority communities, reflecting their higher risk?

Kemi Badenoch: I agree with the hon. Lady; she and I are not going to have a disagreement on this issue. We need to get as many people from all communities represented, but we cannot force people; we need to encourage them and get them to see the benefits of that, so I urge everyone across the House to do that. If we scare people or allow those who are sending misinformation about vaccines to continue with their messaging, we will not see that. So I agree with her and thank her for raising the question.

Virginia Crosbie: I thank the Minister for her statement and congratulate her on the further support for community champions, who are  vital at this exceptional time. Can she share further details as to why the measures are not targeted specifically at ethnic minorities and what that means for my constituents in Wales?

Kemi Badenoch: I know that my hon. Friend is a real champion for communities in Ynys Môn, particularly with her hidden heroes campaign. I thank her for her hard work on that and on behalf of her constituency. The current evidence is showing that there is a range of factors, which I have mentioned already, particularly occupational exposure and co-morbidities. These factors affect the whole population, regardless of race, and we need to protect the whole population. But I am also keen that we do not stigmatise ethnic minorities or make it seem as though they are carriers of the disease. Targeting specific things and saying, “This is just for black people. This is just for Asian people” will create division and stigmatise, and it will not necessarily go to the people who need it most. That is the message I would send to her colleagues in Wales. This is what we have found. We hope that they agree with us and accept this as the way to go. It is about targeting the whole population, knowing what the vulnerabilities are, and not stigmatising groups.

Neale Hanvey: I spent most of my professional career in London working with friends and colleagues from the BAME communities, so it was upsetting for me to find that more than 70% of all NHS and care deaths during the first wave of covid were among the black and minority ethnic communities. Although the reasons for those deaths are not fully understood, there is some anecdotal evidence that the deployment of staff from BAME communities to high-risk or low-protection areas may have played a role in that feature. Will the Minister advise me what action has been taken, in collaboration with the Department for Health and Social Care, regarding potential structural issues in the care services to prevent any repeat of this in the second wave?

Kemi Badenoch: The hon. Gentleman is right to raise that issue. As he will remember, I mentioned that 95% of ethnic minority workers have had risk assessments—we have spoken about that at several points during oral questions in the House. That is the issue that they have been trying to tackle. It is important that risk factors are taken into account before people are deployed in various sectors. We know that ethnic minorities are over-represented in lower-paid parts of the NHS, and we will be tackling that structural issue. But risk assessments are the key thing to ensure that people understand their risk and that is how we will deal with that.

Luke Evans: I welcome the Minister’s statement, and the Health and Social Care Committee is also starting to consider this area. Is she aware of the paper in The Lancet entitled, “The impact of ethnicity on clinical outcomes in COVID-19: A systematic review”, which was published in June? It broadly picked up three areas: biological, the ACE2 receptors and difference in immune responses; the medical aspects, people having different cardiovascular or diabetic risks; and the socio-economic factors around crowding and job type. The study noticed limitations with all those areas and had questions about which predominates, so will the Minister commit  to a road map to get more evidence and research to better understand the factors that we can control, and those we cannot?

Kemi Badenoch: I will ask my colleagues in the Race Disparity Unit to see whether we can have a road map.

Helen Hayes: Many cleaners, facilities management staff and security staff working in Government buildings are from black and minority ethnic backgrounds. What action is the Minister taking to address the terrible disparity in employment terms and conditions for those staff? That leaves them without the protection of full sick pay in the event that they have symptoms or need to self-isolate, putting them, and others working in the same buildings, at greater risk.

Kemi Badenoch: The Government are providing money to those people who have to self-isolate. On the broader issue of people from ethnic minority backgrounds working in lower-paid employment, this is one of the things that we dealt with as part of the employer risk guidance, which we repeatedly gave in July and September.

Lucy Allan: May I say what a fantastic job the Minister is doing in tackling some of the most difficult issues head on? I pay tribute to her for her courage and I thank her for participating in the trial at Guy’s and St Thomas’s. It is abhorrent that any Member of the House should do anything to discourage participation in any such trial. Does the Minister agree that it is the duty of every Member of the House to work with our communities, as leaders, in encouraging participation in such an important trial?

Kemi Badenoch: I agree with my hon. Friend and, as I said to the hon. Member for West Ham (Ms Brown), this is not something that should be a cause for division in the House. We should be working together on this. I did not write the letter just to Conservative colleagues; I wrote it to all colleagues, and I hope that people will take up the notices in it and share them across their communities.

Naseem Shah: I am glad that the Minister referred to her letter, because I have just had a check and I certainly have not received a letter from her; she referred to the matter in her answer to our shadow Minister.
On 19 April, I wrote to the Secretary of State for Health and asked about languages specifically, offering my help and support in reaching ethnic minorities. I have a large minority. I come from Bradford—a diverse city—and Bradford West is one of the most diverse constituencies in the country. Again, I asked about languages commissioned in September, in a written question, as have others. While I appreciate that today the Minister has said we have spent £4 million, the truth is that, while this debate has been going on, I have spoken to commissioners for Geo News, Dunya News, ARY and Channel 44, and £4,000 has been commissioned for the 12 channels that I know of that communicate in the language of Urdu, and that is without speaking to all the BAME media, while this statement has been going on. Sunrise Radio, the largest Asian radio station  outside London, has had one campaign, from 2 to 7 May, in Hindi, Punjabi and Urdu, but it had nothing from 7 May right until 19 October. So how can she stand here and tell this House that the Government have been reaching out to BAME communities? Jang newspaper had to go to Downing Street and negotiate for written—not for radio communication and not for TV—adverts. So when will the Conservative party get real about communicating honestly with black and minority ethnic communities in their languages?

Kemi Badenoch: We have published public health messages in over 600 publications. If the hon. Lady would like to write to me with places that have not received communications, that is something I can take up with the Cabinet Office, but I myself have done quite a bit of media—BBC Asian Network, BBC Radio Manchester and other local media outlets—and I have done lots of social media activity. We have had ethnic minority influences reaching 5 million people. I am sorry to say that if the hon. Lady is not seeing these things, then perhaps she is not watching, but the money that we have spent is a testament to how hard we are working to reach people. There are still some hard-to-reach communities, and that is why we are having the community champions, because at the end of the day it cannot just be TV and it cannot just be social media. We need local authorities and people who know their local areas to be able to go out and find those people who still are not hearing the message. I hope that is something that she will do. I will find out from the House why she has not received the letter. It should have been sent to all colleagues, and I know many across the House have received it.

Tom Hunt: I recently had the honour of becoming the ambassador for BSC Multicultural Services in Ipswich, which as well as supporting our large and thriving Bangladeshi community, supports people from over 50 other nationalities. Throughout the covid-19 pandemic, it has provided invaluable work giving food parcels to the most needy from those communities, but right now its finances are under strain ever so slightly. I was wondering if the Minister could give both me and the other leaders of the group some reassurance about potential financial assistance to them.

Kemi Badenoch: I commend my hon. Friend for the important work he is doing to support his community. The Government agree that charities play an invaluable role in this country, which is why we have committed a £750 million package of support specifically for charities, social enterprises and the voluntary sector, so that they continue their work through the outbreak. That includes £200 million that has been distributed by the National Lottery Community Fund through the coronavirus community support fund. The fund closed to new applications on 17 August, but about 97% of the total fund value had been awarded as of 13 October. In addition, £150 million has been released from dormant accounts to help social enterprises get affordable credit to people who are financially vulnerable and to support charities tackling youth unemployment.

Debbie Abrahams: Covid is the disease of poverty. The evidence clearly shows that there is a higher prevalence of, and mortality from, the disease in areas of high deprivation.  In addition to people from black, Asian and minority ethnic groups being at risk of covid, disabled people accounted for nearly 60% of all deaths between March and July. They are more likely to live in poverty than non-disabled people, and also accounted for a third of the 300,000 people who were not eligible for social security support in the spring. I understand that the Equality and Human Rights Commission is examining discrimination of disabled people during covid, but what are the Government doing to protect disabled people’s lives and livelihoods in the second wave?

Kemi Badenoch: As I said earlier, the Government really take seriously the outcomes for those with disabilities. There is a lot of work happening across Government, across very many Departments. We are not leaving anyone behind; we are making sure that support is available, not just at national level through support schemes, but through local authorities and through the Department for Work and Pensions locally. If the hon. Lady wants more information, I am sure that this is something I can write to her about. I do not have the full information to hand, but I know that there is a lot of work going on across Government.

Ben Spencer: I thank my hon. Friend and welcome this incredibly important ongoing work. Does she agree with me about the importance of using science to determine individual risk as a way to help people make informed decisions about their lives and their work?

Kemi Badenoch: Yes, absolutely; it has to be evidence-led. Everything that we are doing in the Equality Hub is evidence-led. We have a real focus on data, to ensure that we base our decisions on what is actually happening and do not take them for reasons of politics or other things that are not science-based. I completely agree with my hon. Friend; I do not think there was anything to disagree with in what he said.

Chi Onwurah: When, in Tuesday’s Black History Month debate, I said  I was angry that six months into this pandemic all we seem to know is that black and ethnic minority people are two to three times more likely to die from covid, but not why, the Minister intervened on me and said that she would give me the answers today. I am sorry, but she has not. She seems to be saying that there is no link with ethnicity but it is up to individuals to protect themselves. The report is quite clear in that it mentions factors such as socioeconomic background, but it does not say whether those factors are causes or correlations. So I ask her again: when will we have the data-based evidence as to the causes of this heightened risk? Specifically, are the Government using artificial intelligence techniques to correlate the different factors so that we know why this is happening in our black communities?

Kemi Badenoch: I disagree with the hon. Lady. I think we have answered the question. Saying that something is a factor means it is having an effect—it is part of the reason. She says—[Interruption.] It does mean that. She asks for the causes of covid. What is causing the disease is people catching it; it is a contagious disease. This is not rocket science. What we are explaining is why certain groups are disproportionately impacted. We have explained that it is household size, it is population density, it is geographic factors, it is socioeconomic factors—all those things are having an effect. I know where the hon. Lady is getting to, but we have also explained that for some groups, such as Bangladeshi women and white women, when we take out comorbidities, the disparity is completely gone. I am sorry that the report does not give her the answer that she is looking for, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) rightly said, we are basing it on the science, not politics.

Nigel Evans: I thank the Minister for her statement and for answering 39 questions over an hour. I also thank the technicians, as many of the questions were virtual. Thank you very much.
Virtual participation in proceedings concluded (Order, 4 June).

Point of Order

Nick Smith: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have received very poor responses from Ministers in recent weeks. I asked about the withdrawal of Randox covid-19 tests; the responses did not answer the question. I asked about stocks of flu vaccine; I have heard nothing. I asked about customs agents at our ports; the answer was derisory—just six words. We are trying to do our job and hold the Executive to account, but this Parliament is being short-changed. Anybody would think the Government were trying to block scrutiny and hide their poor performance. Mr Deputy Speaker, will you please advise me whether it is the Leader of the House who is best placed to help me seek straightforward answers from his Cabinet colleagues to reasonable questions from Members of this House?

Nigel Evans: I thank the hon. Member for giving me advance notice of his point of order. Mr Speaker has repeatedly called for Departments to give higher priority to prompt and substantive answers to parliamentary questions at this time, when accountability is of great importance. The hon. Member is right about the role of the Leader of the House, to whom he can make his own representations, but I do hope that those on the Treasury Bench will have heard his point of order and will get that message across to the Leader of the House, and to all Government Ministers and Departments.

Bill presented

Marriage (Authorised Belief Organisations)

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Rehman Chishti, supported by Crispin Blunt, Ms Angela Eagle, Steve McCabe, Jeff Smith, Rachel Hopkins, Wera Hobhouse and Daisy Cooper presented a Bill to amend the law on marriage to permit authorised belief organisations to solemnise marriages; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 15 January 2021, and to be printed (Bill 203).

Nigel Evans: We are now going to suspend for a few minutes in order for the Dispatch Boxes to be sanitised, and for the safe departure and arrival of various key players.
Sitting suspended.

Covid-19

Matthew Hancock: I beg to move,
That this house has considered covid-19.
The House meets today to debate the coronavirus pandemic once more. The peril of the pandemic has no short-term quick fix, but calls for ingenuity, commitment and resolve from us all. We have responded with one of the greatest collective efforts that this nation has seen in peacetime, but the fight is not over: the virus continues to spread, and cases, hospitalisations and, tragically, deaths are all rising. Yesterday we learned that Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust is now treating more patients than it was at the peak in April, and across the UK the number of deaths has doubled in under a fortnight. And yet, just as the situation we face is grave, so the hope of a solution is growing. With every day, my confidence in the ingenuity of science to bring resolution grows. But until that moment, we must have resolve. We are focused on finding a long-term solution, and we reject political point scoring. I call on the House to work together in the interests of our whole nation—and, indeed, the whole world.

Chris Bryant: I just wonder whether one problem we have at the moment is that we do not have enough capacity in the whole of the NHS to take on covid in a long-term way, as the Secretary of State suggests, and still be able to do all the things that we really need to do. How can we ramp up that capacity so that we are still treating people for cancer, for brain injury and for all the other things that we all care about?

Matthew Hancock: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. He represents a seat in Wales, and this is a challenge for the NHS in all four nations of the United Kingdom. I was going to come on to this, but one thing that we have learned in the first phase is how we can do better in keeping the other services running that the NHS must and should provide, for instance for brain injuries, for cancer treatment and for heart patients. There are also those things that are not life-threatening, but that harm people’s lives—a painful hip or a cataract that needs treatment. In the first wave, as we knew so much less about this virus, many of those treatments were stopped altogether.
In the second wave, we have two things at our advantage. The first is that this is a much more regional second wave, which puts more pressure on areas such as Liverpool and Lancashire than elsewhere in the country, but that does mean that elsewhere the elective and the urgent operations can continue. The second difference is that we know much more about the virus and how it spreads, so we have separated the NHS into green sites and blues sites. Green sites are for where we have a high degree of confidence that there is no covid, using testing and asking people to isolate before going in for an operation, so that people can have more confidence. The central message across all parts of the UK is that the NHS remains open. Finally on this point, the best way we can keep the sorts of treatments that we all want to see going is to keep the virus under control.

Mark Tami: The Secretary of State has answered my question in part with the importance of green and red. One of the big problems in the first wave is that people were frightened, even if they feared that they had cancer or some other condition, to go into the hospitals, and we have to reassure them that they can go there and they can be safe.

Matthew Hancock: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We have an advertising campaign, “Help us to help you”, to make the simple point to people that, if they are asked to go to hospital by a clinician, then it is safer to go to hospital than not to do so. In fact, we call them green sites and blue sites. Green means free from covid—we are as confident as we can be that they are. It is blue, not red, which means that we still want people to come to hospital, even if they have to come to A&E, because there is only likely to be, at worst, as much covid as in the general population, unless, of course, a person is in a covid ward treating only covid patients. The NHS has learned a huge amount both about the microbiology of the disease and about how to run health services in a world when covid is at large.

Steven Baker: Of course this is a dangerous disease and, of course, cases are rising, including in my own area, so it is with some humility that I have a look at the daily excess all-cause deaths in all ages in England, which show that there has been no significant excess all-cause mortality observed in week 40 overall. Is it not the case that the good news in this second wave is that the disease is not progressing as it did in the first?

Matthew Hancock: I want to keep it that way. It is true that the all-cause mortality rates are around the typical levels for this time of year, and that is partly because non-covid deaths are actually lower at the moment than in most years, and because, thus far, we have worked to keep this virus under control. We know from the basic mathematics of compounding growth and the exponential nature of the growth of any virus that the number of deaths will increase if the number of cases increase exponentially, hence the need for the actions that we in this House have voted for.

Bob Stewart: On that point, many of my constituents were frightened to go to hospital because they thought that they might get infected with covid. With that in mind—I am quite sure my right hon. Friend has thought of this—would it not be an idea to separate out hospitals, so that we have a covid centre of excellence, say using the Nightingale hospitals, where everyone goes, and then the normal hospitals that deal with everything else? Forgive me for raising this point, because I am quite sure that the Secretary of State has a very good answer.

Matthew Hancock: It is a brilliant idea—so brilliant that the NHS has spent the summer working on that concept. We cannot do it as perfectly as my hon. Friend suggests, and the reason is the practicalities of the treatment of covid—for instance, if someone has covid and something else, they need a normal intensive care unit. But the Nightingale hospitals are there—in fact today, sadly, the Nightingale hospital in Manchester is reopening. For all the rest of the hospitals, we are making sure that different parts of the hospital are deemed either blue or green—essentially covid-free or at risk of covid. Some  of the different buildings are covid-free or non-covid, or, in some cases, whole hospitals are covid green sites and people cannot go to them unless they have tested negative. That means we can have a high degree of confidence because, for instance, if we are treating cancer patients, we want to ensure that there is not any covid in there.
We need these long-term solutions and, like other liberal democracies around the world, we are wrestling with this question—as we have wrestled with it in the last few minutes—of how to keep people safe from the virus while protecting other important things in life: our liberties, our livelihoods and the things that we love. That is what leads us to the strategy of suppressing the virus and supporting the economy, education and the NHS. The NHS needs to be supported to do all the other things that it needs to do until a vaccine is available.
I reject the false choice that says we must pick a side and choose between a healthy economy and a healthy nation, because the two are intrinsically linked. If, God forbid, we were to let the virus unleash its full force, the damage to not just the NHS and the hundreds of thousands of lives, but our livelihoods would be catastrophic. We can only get our economy and our society going gangbusters again if we drive this virus down, so that people have the confidence that they need to live their lives to the full—and drive it down we must.
This is a deadly virus, and, yes, it reserves its biggest impact for the oldest in society, which means the rise in the number of cases among the over-60s gives me a lot of cause for concern. We also just heard compellingly from the Minister for Equalities about the impact on people from ethnic minority backgrounds, but the impact is not confined to these groups. The virus can affect anyone of any age and any background, and we have already seen worrying numbers of young, fit, healthy people suffering debilitating symptoms months after contracting covid. Yesterday, a study by King’s College London showed that one in 20 people with coronavirus is likely to have virus symptoms, such as fatigue, breathlessness, muscle pain and neurological problems, for eight weeks or more. Yesterday, I visited the cutting-edge long covid clinic at University College London hospital. I have met people in their 20s and 30s unable to work, sapped of all their energy, living with the long-term effects of a virus that has completely changed their lives. Therefore, to anyone of any age, catching covid can be very grave indeed. Long covid underpins, again, our strategy for suppressing the virus until a vaccine arrives.

Luke Evans: When my right hon. Friend came to the Health and Social Care Committee a few weeks ago, he talked about long covid and the fact that clinics were being set up to deal with it. Will he give the House an update on where that has got to?

Matthew Hancock: These clinics are being set up—the London clinic is now open—but we need to see them right across the country. The NHS now has a programme of rolling out clinics to be able to support people and, of course to communicate with GPs. That is important because primary care is often where people arrive with long covid, because there appears to be no correlation between the seriousness of someone’s initial illness and how long they can have these debilitating consequences. In some cases, people have no symptoms of the coronavirus  initially, but then find that they have months and months of fatigue, a brain fog and muscle pain, and they do not know where it came from until they are diagnosed with long covid. It is a very serious complication.

John Spellar: To enable us to get a picture, could the Secretary of State tell us what percentage of people up to 25 suffer from the condition?

Matthew Hancock: Yes. We have two points of evidence; one is the evidence from King’s College London that shows that approximately one in 20 people with coronavirus is likely to have long-term symptoms, but the other evidence implies that in adults under 50, the proportion is more like one in 10. There seems to be some correlation that implies that it is more of a problem among younger people, but the understanding of long covid is still in its early stages and an awful lot more research is needed.

John Spellar: I am sorry to press the point, but it is a question of roughly what percentage is affected; not of those who contract the disease, but of the overall cohort.

Matthew Hancock: It is very difficult to know. We estimate that approximately 8% of the population have had covid and that one in 20 people who has had it has symptoms for longer than eight weeks. Of course, the fewer people who get covid, the fewer people who get long covid, which reinforces the overall strategy of suppressing the virus until we get a vaccine. Let me turn to how we do that.
We cannot reiterate enough the importance of the basics: social distancing and “hands, face, space”. The next area is following rules on local action, which are at the core of how we and an increasing number of other countries around the world are tackling the crisis at the moment. Through our local covid alert levels, we have been able to take a balanced approach; I would like to update the House today on some further changes that we are making.
Unfortunately, we are seeing rising rates of infection in Stoke-on-Trent, in Coventry and in Slough. In all those areas, there are more than 100 positive cases per 100,000 people, cases are doubling approximately every fortnight and we are seeing a concerning increase in cases among the over-60s. We have agreed, in partnership with local leaders, to move those areas into the high local alert level, which will come into force at one minute past midnight on Saturday.
The central change is that people will not be able to meet other households socially indoors. This applies in any setting—at home, in a restaurant or in any other venue. The rule of six still applies in any outdoor setting, and although people may continue to travel to open venues, they should reduce the number of journeys where possible. I thank local leaders in the areas for the work they have done and for their co-operation. I can assure the people of Stoke-on-Trent, of Coventry and of Slough that we will support them all the way through, including with the business support that the Chancellor announced earlier today for all areas with a high local alert level.
We are also formally beginning discussions with Warrington about moving into the very high alert level, owing to a continuing rise in cases there.

Andy Carter: I thank the Secretary of State for the ongoing dialogue with me as a Warrington MP and with my colleagues in Warrington. I was particularly concerned this morning after having seen Public Health England data about the rapid rise in the infection rate among the over-60s in Warrington. Could he say a little more about that information?

Matthew Hancock: I am worried about the rise in cases, especially among the over-60s in Warrington. We have seen that case rate continuing to rise, despite the hard work of people locally, since Warrington was moved into local alert level 2. There is an excellent local hospital in Warrington, but it is dealing with a very high number of cases and is working with other local hospitals to ensure that everybody gets the treatment they need. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who has provided great leadership in his local community. I hope that with everybody supporting these measures and taking the actions necessary, we can keep these restrictions in place for as little time as possible, but I am absolutely convinced that we need to make progress. I have announced today that we will formally start the talks; I hope that we can reach an agreement and resolution soon.
The virus moves quickly, so we must respond quickly and in a targeted way like this to keep it under control. As part of local discussions, local authorities including the Local Government Association have asked for stronger enforcement powers, and I agree. To support businesses who are doing the right thing it is fair that we take action against those business who are doing the wrong thing. Firm enforcement helps make these restrictions fairer for all. We want to put in place stronger regulations to give local authorities further powers to take further action in their area. The proposals that we will bring forward will mean that councils will be able to act without delay and use closure notices to shut premises on public health grounds to help suppress the virus. We will work with local authorities in the coming days on the details of these proposals so that we can act in a firm and fast way against the minority who are breaching these life-saving rules.
These changes will help us fight the virus in the here and now but we are also making progress on long-term solutions. The long-term solution is not to give up, as some would have us do, or wish the virus away; it is to harness the science and the ingenuity of innovation while supporting people through.
First, on testing, thanks to exceptional work from so many people we have built a critical national infrastructure of diagnostic testing. Today’s testing capacity is now over 370,000. Alongside this expansion of the current technology, I want to update the House on mass testing. I know there have been many questions about this project. Last week, we began rolling out new testing technologies to hospitals based on the point-of-care LAMP—loop-mediated isothermal amplification—test. That will allow the regular repeat testing of NHS staff and patients. I am delighted to be able to tell the House that yesterday we began the roll-out of lateral flow tests to schools and universities. Lateral flow tests do not require a lab or a machine; the kit gives a result within minutes. We have successfully purchased many millions of these tests and they will allow us both to find the virus where it spreads and to reduce the disruption that virus control measures inevitably create.
If we can deliver a mass-testing solution so that pupils in a bubble do not have to isolate for a fortnight when one in the bubble tests positive, we will not only help control the spread of the virus but we will protect education better and help schools, teachers and parents to live their lives much closer to normal. These tests will also allow directors of public health to have more rapid access to testing capacity and we are starting the roll-out to councils, including today with the council in Stoke-on-Trent.
The second area to touch on is vaccines. Progress continues on the development and the deployment of vaccines, and we are determined to give those developing vaccines all the support they need. I can inform the House that we are initiating human challenge trials to speed up the development of the coronavirus vaccine and to improve further its safety. We are contributing £33 million to back these trials, joining forces with academia and industry. A human challenge trial involves taking a vaccine candidate that has been proven to be safe in trials and giving it to a small number of carefully selected, healthy adult volunteers who are then exposed to the virus in a safe and controlled environment closely monitored by medics and scientists. That gives us the chance to accelerate the understanding of promising vaccines that have been through the clinical trials so that we can improve on their safe development. The UK is one of the only countries in the world with the capability to run that kind of programme, and we should all be proud that, once again, we are leading on this global effort.
Our response to this lethal virus has been one of the greatest collective endeavours that this nation has seen. Thanks to those efforts, we are better prepared this time round. As a nation, we built the Nightingale hospitals in just nine days. As a nation, we came together as one to protect the NHS, and it was not overwhelmed. Now the NHS is better prepared still. As a nation, we built the biggest testing capability of all our peers, and we have made huge and historic advances in vaccines and treatments. We understand this virus infinitely more than at the start of this pandemic but we are not there yet—not when the virus is spreading at pace. So we must each of us look at what we can do, the role we can play and what actions we can take. We have seen throughout this pandemic that we are at our best when we come together. We know that with science on our side ultimately we will prevail.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Rosie Winterton: Order. Colleagues will see that there are many who wish to contribute to this debate. Therefore, I will impose an immediate five-minute time limit on Back-Bench contributions. I call the shadow Secretary of State.

Jon Ashworth: Given the numbers who are interested in the debate and given that I have enjoyed the indulgence of the House now for four days in a row—I am not sure what I will do next week; I might just come here and make a speech for the sake of it—I will try to be brief. I also apologise to the House, because I have a long-standing commitment and so I will not be here for the wind-ups. I apologise to the House for that discourtesy on this occasion. I have spoken to Mr Speaker about it, and he understands the particular circumstances.
I noticed that the Secretary of State has updated the House on Slough, Stoke-on-Trent and Coventry, but he did not mention anything about Nottinghamshire and West Yorkshire, and he will know that they are candidates that are widely speculated as the next to go into the tier 3 lockdown restrictions. For example, in parts of Nottinghamshire, localised infection rates are 370 per 100,000 in Gedling and 362 per 100,000 in Rushcliffe. In West Yorkshire, the rate is 307 per 100,000 in Wakefield and in Calderdale. Given that, he must be considering the future of West Yorkshire and Nottinghamshire.
I am just aware that we are going into the parliamentary recess. I do not know whether I can invite the Secretary of State to say anything now, because Members from those areas will be concerned that with Parliament not sitting next week, they might not have an opportunity to put their points to him or get their points on the record. If he does not want to say anything now, it would be important if the Minister of State could offer some reassurance to people in those parts of the world as to what might be happening.

Matthew Hancock: As previously announced, discussions are under way. We want to proceed in consultation with and working with the local areas. With the parliamentary recess next week, we will find a way to ensure that colleagues are appraised of the situation, preferably in advance of any announcement.

Jon Ashworth: I am truly grateful for that reassurance, because the Secretary of State will understand that many people in those areas will be concerned and Members will want to get their points of view on the record on that front.
The virus has caused a pandemic because it exploits ambivalence and takes advantage of our human vulnerabilities. It undermines our biological defences and spreads through human social behaviour and clustering. We know that people with long-term chronic conditions in particular are vulnerable, and we know that there is a greater burden of illness in our more disadvantaged areas, which covid cruelly exaggerates. We know that as we entered this crisis, we had less resilience as a society. We entered with life expectancy falling for some of the poorest and stalling nationwide, and life expectancy is a summary of our overall health.
In the past 10 years, the amount of life in good health has decreased for men and women. Our child mortality rates are some of the worst in Europe, and poor health and chronic illness leave communities acutely vulnerable to disease, so it should come as no surprise to any of us that some of the boroughs currently fighting the most virulent fires are some of the very poorest in our country, with the very worst life expectancy.
I welcome the progress being made on diagnostics, therapeutics and vaccinations, which the Secretary of State has updated us on today. We welcome the expanding of mass testing, including the saliva testing and the lateral flow testing. I hope, by the way, that the Secretary of State will invest in our great universities, which are developing some of this saliva-based testing, because they will need the equipment and the labs to process it. He will probably need to invest in robotics and artificial intelligence to do some of that, because there are not enough staff to do it at the moment, and I hope that is   part of his agenda. As well as all that, because the virus is now endemic, we will need a health inequalities strategy to get on top of this virus for the long term.
In the immediate term, we also need to adjust our behaviours to bring infection rates down, which is why I have supported the difficult restrictions that the Secretary of State has had to impose, and it is why we are saying we need clarity all the time from Government. But people also want to know that there is light at the end of the tunnel, because it is still not clear to families in Bury, Heywood and Penistone and all those other places that have been put under lockdown in recent days how they will escape it.
We still do not know whether the restrictions across the north will be lifted when the national R falls below 1 or when local regionalised R values fall below 1. We still do not know whether restrictions will be lifted across the north when hospital admissions stabilise. Yesterday, the Prime Minister said that decisions are
“based on a number of things including the R—also, of course, rates of infection, rates of admission to hospital and other data.”—[Official Report, 21 October 2020; Vol. 682, c. 1053.]
He did not tell us what that other data is. Perhaps the Minister responding to the debate can outline how an area in the north in tier 3 gets out of those restrictions. I know that the areas will be reviewed every four weeks, but what are the criteria to inform those reviews?
I represent Leicester, where we are in tier 2, but we have been in a version of restrictions for 114 days. We went directly from national lockdown to local lockdown. In fact, we endured tougher restrictions than those currently designated for tier 3. Our hospitality closed, our non-essential retail closed and—I did not agree with this—our schools closed as well. All those measures together did help to bring infections down in Leicester to about 55 per 100,000—to be frank, many Members would bite your hand off for 55 per 100,000 now—and even at 55 per 100,000 we remained in a version of lockdown.
Now, months later, after all the sacrifice we took in Leicester—after months with our businesses closed, with the mental health impact of people not being able to see their loved ones and families denied the opportunity to visit a care home to see their grandmother or mother—our infection rates in Leicester are 219 per 100,000. The Secretary of State will therefore have to forgive me when I express some scepticism that his approach will work and suppress the virus to the levels sufficient to bring the R value down, because although the early restrictions in Leicester did have an impact, after months we are still under restrictions with infection rates over 200 per 100,000.
The Secretary of State updated us on the situation we are in. He has been good at updating the House repeatedly; I have no criticism of him at all on that front. The growth rate in the virus is slower than in March—it is more muted, thanks to the great sacrifices of the British people, with hand hygiene, social distancing and everything we are doing—but it is not plateauing. We are dealing with an autumn resurgence, and for all the heat and fallout we have had across the House this week, the truth is that the virus is at worrying levels everywhere. The national R is between 1.3 and 1.5. The R across the  south-east is between 1.3 and 1.5, across the south-west between 1.3 and 1.6, and across the east of England between 1.3 and 1.5.
Of course, admissions to critical care are currently concentrated in the north and the midlands, but while at this stage in the first wave those admissions to critical care were beginning to come down, they are continuing to go up. It is right that improvements in care mean that people are less likely to die. That is a good thing, and we all celebrate that, but general and acute beds are filling up with covid patients across the north and across the midlands.
We know that the Prime Minister has rejected a circuit break for now—he does not rule it out indefinitely. We think he should have taken advantage of next week’s half term. He decided not to do that. But we should remind ourselves that SAGE advised the circuit break on 21 September. A month later, on 21 October, we had these grim statistics: 191 deaths; 996 hospital admissions; 6,431 in hospital; 629 on ventilation; 26,688 tested positive; and 249,978 cases in the past 14 days. Many will ask how much of that could have been avoided, had the Prime Minister gone along with SAGE’s advice a month ago.
Today, the Chancellor said in his statement that we have to find a balance between saving lives and protecting livelihoods, but I do not believe that the two are in conflict. It is not a trade-off. Actually, I do not believe the Secretary of State thinks it is a trade off—the tone of his remarks was very different from that of the Chancellor earlier. Saving lives and protecting livelihoods go hand in hand. I worry that the approach the Government are currently taking—while understandable, because nobody wants to be in a lockdown, and none of these decisions are easy or do not have negative consequences; I think we are all mature enough across the House to appreciate and understand that—means that there will, by necessity, have to be tougher, deeper action in the weeks to come, not only in autumn. Winter has not hit us yet.
Professor John Edmunds of the London School of Hygiene said yesterday in one of the Select Committees that
“there’s no way we come out of this wave now without counting our deaths in the tens of thousands…I think we are looking at quite a bleak situation unless we take action…I don’t think we should be taking action just specifically in the highest risk areas, but I think we need to take action everywhere”.
A similar sentiment was expressed by Sir Jeremy Farrar, who is also on SAGE. For balance, Professor Van-Tam said at the press conference this week that he disagreed, but also that
“we may have to push on the pedal a little harder”
to get it under control.
I know the Secretary of State is a decent man. He has been very good throughout this crisis in talking to me privately; one would expect a Secretary of State and a shadow Secretary of State to have those discussions. Whenever I have asked for briefings, all the way back to January, he has ensured that the chief medical officer would give me confidential briefings, as I am sure that every Member across the House would understand and appreciate. So I know he is a decent man. I know he is not playing games or anything like that. I know that these are difficult judgment calls of extraordinary gravity.  I know there is no easy solution. Everything has trade-offs; everything has negative consequences. But we also know that unless we take decisive action, the consequences could be even worse. No one should pretend to the House that that is not the case. There is a worry that by not taking action now, we will, in the words of Professor David Hunter, an epidemiologist at Oxford,
“all wind up in tier 3 eventually.”
According to Times Radio yesterday, Government sources were telling it that the Government are now planning a three-week circuit break next month across all tier 2 and tier 3 areas. If that is the case, then the Government should probably level with us so that we can all start preparing for it.
This is not just about minimising harm and deaths from covid. As the Secretary of State said in responding to questions from my hon. Friends, we have a huge responsibility and duty to minimise harm and deaths from non-covid conditions as well. We have to avoid the situation that we were in in the spring, when the immense lockdown, which was actually a number of different interventions all at once, meant that to build surge capacity in the national health service, we had to cancel elective operations to free up general and acute beds, and much important diagnostics work and treatment got delayed. That has left us with a situation today where 110,000 people are waiting beyond 12 months for treatment, compared with just 1,600 in January; 3 million people are waiting for breast, bowel or cervical screening, and more people are waiting for treatment.
My worry is that we will end up building a greater backlog in treatment if we do not act. General and acute beds are filling up. We have a number of hospitals cancelling electives already. Bradford has just suspended non-urgent surgery. Birmingham is talking about suspending non-urgent surgery. It is happening in Nottingham. We know that Merseyside is under considerable pressure; the Secretary of State outlined it. It has just been revealed in the Health Service Journal that we are heading into this winter with 2,000 fewer beds than we had last winter. Today the Royal College of Emergency Medicine has warned that over half of A&Es across the country are caring for patients in corridors due to the lack of beds—and we are not even in winter yet. Our overcrowded A&Es are not ideal at the best of times, but during a covid pandemic it is obviously highly dangerous to be treating patients in corridors of A&Es. The president of the royal college, Katherine Henderson, has pointed out that this situation
“will put more lives at risk than it ever did before.”
If the Government really want to drive down infections, suppress the virus and ensure that general and acute beds are not overwhelmed and more operations are not cancelled, then they have to seriously consider what steps they need to take to go further. Unless the Secretary of State or the Minister is going to get up at the end of this debate and say, “Actually, we’re going to do a circuit breaker over half-term next week”, I accept that the Government have probably missed that window of opportunity now, but at some point they will have to take further action.
We could have avoided much of this if test and trace had been more effective. The Secretary of State is spending £12 billion on this programme. Twelve billion pounds is a colossal amount of money. Some of it is  going on consultants who earn £7,000 a day, but where on earth is the rest going? We are throwing around figures in this covid debate, and we are becoming quite complacent and relaxed about them, but £12 billion is an extraordinary amount of money; we could probably run the NHS for a month or so on that. We learn today that the system is contacting only 59.6% of contacts, which is the equivalent of failing to contact 101,000 people. That is not world beating; it is a world-beating shambles. I really hope that the Government look at stripping all the failing private outsourcing firms, such as Serco, of these contracts and putting local public health teams in charge. That would be much more effective.

Rachael Maskell: I want to pick up a point about the app. It is telling people to self-isolate, but it does not give them the code that they need for the process, so they cannot claim their £500. That is creating chaos across local authorities. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government need to get on top of this quickly?

Jon Ashworth: Absolutely. There have been problems with the app. When I am in Leicester, it tells me that I am in an area that is both medium and high alert. Leicester has been under lockdown for 100 days, so how can the app say that in the part of Leicester where I live?

Matthew Hancock: I thought that the hon. Gentleman’s comments were very thoughtful until we got to the unnecessary political knockabout. I want to make a couple of factual points about the app. It only takes the first two segments of someone’s postcode, some of which spread over two different alert levels, so that is why it describes the situation in Leicester as it does. When it comes to making sure that people press the button on the app to access the £500 self-isolation payment for the low-paid, that button is there on the app.
I want to leap to the defence of Test and Trace, because in the past fortnight the number of contacts and cases that have been reached has doubled. In slightly more than the last month, the distance travelled to get a test has halved, and the turnaround time for tests that are sent to care homes—those tests are critical for saving lives—has come down. More than 50 statistics on Test and Trace are published every Thursday, and of course the hon. Gentleman can look through them, find a couple that are going in the wrong direction and complain about them, but I think it is better to have a balanced opinion.

Jon Ashworth: That was a spirited defence, but the statistics have been bad every week. The Secretary of State knows that, because I have raised it with him every week.

Matthew Hancock: What happens is that every week, the hon. Gentleman looks through the 50 statistics and finds the ones that are not going in the right direction. I am merely pointing out that the system is doing much more than it ever has. One place where the huge amounts of money that we are putting into Test and Trace go  is into the record amount of testing capacity, which is now more than 370,000. I think he should stand up  and thank all the people who are delivering on this colossal effort.

Jon Ashworth: I am very happy to thank the people who are working in Test and Trace.

Matthew Hancock: U-turn.

Jon Ashworth: That is not a U-turn. Thanking the staff is not a U-turn. The Opposition are on the side of the workers; the Secretary of State is on the side of the bosses. Of course we are happy to thank the staff who are working on Test and Trace, but he cannot seriously look at the statistics and tell us that the system is effective. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster did not defend it. When he was asked about the statistics on “The Andrew Marr Show” on Sunday, he said that
“any test and trace system of whatever kind has less utility”
when the virus is accelerating. If the Secretary of State thinks that there is a good set of statistics, perhaps he should send it to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who took a different line on Sunday.
Let me come to a conclusion, because I know that many people want to speak in this debate. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State tells me to leave out the knockabout, but he is the one who started it off. The problem is that we went into this pandemic with an underfunded NHS, public health cut back and less resilience as a society. This will not be the only pandemic that we have to deal with. Climate change, urbanisation and deforestation mean that we are likely to see more viruses jump from animals to humans. The big challenge for us as a society when we come through this pandemic, as we will, is that we have to start building the health security to protect us for the future, because unfortunately, all of us across the House will be dealing with more of these pandemics in the years to come.

Andrew Mitchell: I draw the House’s attention to my outside interests. This is the first time I have sought to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, in any of the covid debates. I want to express strong support for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. He has an impossibly difficult job to do, which in my view he is doing very well indeed, and we should all support him. I also want to express my gratitude and admiration for the health facilities in my constituency, in particular Good Hope Hospital.
I want to encourage a few small changes—to use a nautical metaphor, an adjustment on the tiller—to be made when possible. I am pleased to see that my right hon. Friend is working far more with Members of Parliament. The wisdom from our constituencies, as we report back in the House from the frontline, is very important and should play a critical part in the Government reaching their conclusions. Working closely with local authorities and Mayors is not easy and not always elegant, but it is vital for my right hon. Friend successfully achieving what he wants to.
For many years, I have not had many nice things to say about Birmingham City Council, but the public health authorities under Justin Varney are doing an exceptional job under the regional Mayor, Andy Street, whose leadership we all admire. It should also be said that Birmingham City Council did a first-class job in dealing with the homeless at the start of the pandemic and ensuring that they all had somewhere to go off the streets. Politicians in the west midlands, who I think it is  fair to say never agree on anything, have worked closely together since March and established a good working relationship. This is not a political crisis; it is a health crisis. We should all play our part in keeping the aggro levels down, and the Secretary of State and the shadow Secretary of State set a good example today.
In the trade-offs that Ministers inevitably must make between protecting our health and the health service and protecting jobs, livelihoods and investment, I would push the tiller a bit more towards the economy and economic activities. I am lost in admiration at the ingenuity, impressive optimism and vitality of the private sector in Sutton Coldfield as I visit their businesses and hear their determination but also their anxiety.
I wish to mention two sectors. The first is the events and exhibitions sector, which employs 600,000 people and has a turnover of about £80 billion each year, which is roughly the same as the automotive industry. A couple of weeks ago, I visited Solutions2 in Minworth in my constituency, which previously had a £6 million turnover but since March has had a turnover of precisely £8,000. It has 36 staff, 35 of whom are furloughed. They showed me a map of Europe, which showed that there was activity in their sector across Europe and in the middle east and far east but not, alas, in this country. They pointed out that an exhibition had taken place in Dusseldorf for the caravan show, which 107,000 people had visited.
The second sector that I wish briefly to mention is weddings and the marriage industry, which is flat on its back in Sutton Coldfield. More could be done to relax the tight restrictions in favour of covid-sensible arrangements, and I hope that the Government can show some flexibility on this. Venues such as Moor Hall and the wedding car industry, for example, are being badly affected.
I think I know the Prime Minister well enough to say that he is a social liberal at heart who dislikes the massive extension of the state as much as I do—the framework of restrictions and ways of living; the language of authority, with curfews, lockdowns, compliance and bans; and the machinery of coercion, with informing, policing, snitching and fining. I was horrified to hear this morning that four students in Nottingham have been fined £10,000 each—more than a year’s fees—for breaching the rules. The lives and opportunities of young people in particular have been blighted by this dreadful pandemic. We probably need to protect the elderly and vulnerable a little more and shield and curtail the young a little less. It is about a touch on the tiller, being a little less didactic and a little more trusting in the good sense of social solidarity of the vast majority.
Finally, I am a former member of the all-party parliamentary group on mental health, along with Alastair Campbell and Norman Lamb—probably one of the best public health Ministers we have had since the war. We are facing a mental ill health epidemic. People who are, inevitably, not being seen really should be seen. We must keep this issue at the front of all our minds as this crisis continues.

Anne McLaughlin: I would like to start by acknowledging that the Government are in an unenviable position. This is a tough gig.

Matthew Hancock: Hear, hear!

Anne McLaughlin: I see that the Health Secretary agrees with me somewhat. Everybody on these islands is tired at the moment, but those making the tough decisions do not have the option to give in to the tiredness. I might not always agree with everything they are doing—I do not generally agree with most of what they do—but I understand that everybody is an expert these days.
Some of what the Government did in response to the pandemic was good. Furloughing was not just good; it was fantastic. I am not going to qualify that. These islands were not alone in having the idea, but it was a great idea. When I sat and watched the Chancellor’s initial response, I thought he was fast, flexible and responsive. I felt at that point that ideology had gone, that politics had been taken out of the situation and that the Government were simply doing what they could to support people as best they could. In fact, I remember thinking that when the Chancellor appeared on “Spitting Image” he would be wrapped in the red flag, so socialist were some of the furloughing policies.
We also heard about people slipping through the net. As everybody keeps saying, we are in unprecedented times. We had those Paymaster General calls every day, and much of what we reported was acted on initially. It was a terrible time, but it was a good time for politicians to work together in the interests of the four countries of these islands.
Not everything was acted on, however, and not everyone was supported. Some of those gaps were never filled. I want to mention two things in particular. First, my constituency has many wholesalers who chose not to furlough their staff because they wanted to play their part in responding to the pandemic. They wanted to ensure the flow of food and drink, particularly to hospitals. I know something was said in the statement earlier today, which I have not yet seen, but they have felt for a long time that they did not receive a response.
I wrote to the Chancellor to ask about that and I just want to say something about the responses I have been getting. The hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith) made a point of order about this earlier. Some of the responses have no reference—when we put a reference, they do not include it when responding. One of the complaints made in the point of order was about a six-word response to a question. I got an eight-page response to something, but I have no idea what the question was because, as I said, it did not give a reference. In addition, it seemed to be eight pages of “Isn’t the Government great?” which is just not acceptable. I do not know why the replies are like this. I wonder if it is an attempt to stop us asking questions in the first place, because I am certainly giving up sometimes.
The people who have formed the campaign organisation ExcludedUK have not given up. I am part of the all-party parliamentary group on the ExcludedUK. They have been incredible, but they are in a really difficult position and I, too, would have been in their position had I not won my seat in December. I was self-employed but I had not been self-employed for long enough. I will not go into the details, but I know that if I were one of them right now, I would not be living in the home that I have lived in for 10 years. I do not know what would have happened to me, so I identify with them and want to keep supporting them.
It was really good that the Government added £1,000 a year to universal credit, although it had been cut to the extent that that simply brought it back up to 2011 levels. On the other hand, I did not expect a Conservative Government to do that, so I am glad that they did. However, they need to extend it and they need to add it to legacy benefits. I implore them to do that and to extend the furlough scheme. Whenever that is mentioned in this place, Government Members shout, “For how long can we do that? We can’t sustain it forever!” But it would not be forever, and even though we do not know exactly how long it would last, we can estimate and reasonably suppose that by next summer there will be some kind of normality, so why not extend it until then, if needs be? In the past few months, I have noticed some terrible situations with employers and I have many examples. I already gave some examples when I spoke in the debate on whistleblowers a while back, but I want to raise one situation today, because I am hoping that Government Members will do something about it. It is a very serious matter. The employer is the Government. Whoever took the decision that I am going to tell the House about should be ashamed of themselves.
There are three service centres in Glasgow for the DWP and the situation concerns people working in those service centres who do not have to do face-to-face. I am telling the House what is happening in Glasgow, but I am sure this will not just be the case in Glasgow; I imagine that it is widespread across these islands. Workers were on a work-from-home pilot scheme. Some teams were allowed to work four days a week at home and one day in the office. Others worked three weeks at home and one week in the office.
On 23 September, the Prime Minister and the First Minister both gave the instruction that anybody who could work from home should work from home. Naturally, those workers expected that they would be allowed to work from home full time, but they were refused permission to do that. Some of the workers, who are all kitted out at home, are having to bring their equipment into the office on that one day of the week or that one week of the month, despite what the Government were saying people should do. They were constantly being told that it was fine, it was safe and that there was no danger to them. Well, that was not what the Government were saying.
On the week ending 9 October, it was announced that two members of staff in that building had tested positive. On 12 October, another three members of staff were reported to have tested positive. On 15 October, a further two members of staff tested positive—seven cases in less than a week. On 19 October, Monday of this week, there was another case and on 20 October, Tuesday, there were another two. So that is 10.
I am sure that Members can understand the fears that those workers were experiencing, but I will tell them who did not understand—or maybe they did and just did not care. Last Friday, a senior manager at the DWP held a Skype meeting with the teams to reassure them that the office was safe and to remind them that the pilot could not be changed and there could be no flexibility, despite what the Prime Minister and the First Minister were telling employers to do. I understand that the tone was more threatening than reassuring. The senior manager warned that if workers continued to raise concerns the pilot might be cancelled and they would all be forced to work in the office full time. She  “hoped” that that would not have to happen. That is workplace bullying and I hope the Secretary of State will raise it with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. I certainly will be raising it.
Yesterday, just to bring everyone up to date, staff were told that the pilot had been suspended. That is good in the short term, because all those who can work from home are now doing so full time, but there is no information and no answer to their questions about how this situation will progress. Given threats that speaking out might mean that the pilot is cancelled and everyone will be forced to work in the office, one can be forgiven for thinking that that is what is going to happen. So I just want to ask a few questions. Why, if they could work from home and are equipped to work from home, were they forced to work in the office? Of the 10 testing positive so far, how many were part of the work-from-home pilot? How can a Government agency be given permission to ignore the restrictions that everyone else is rightly following? Will management punish the “unruly dissenters” who complained about it by forcing them all to work in the office, as was suggested by the senior manager? Do the Government understand the message that the workers are getting, which is, “You don’t matter, you have no power”?
Well, not only do they have no power, but their MP seems to have no influence. My attempts to represent my constituents started on 4 October, when I had a meeting with DWP senior managers. I had just been made aware of the situation—the meeting was about something else—so I said I urgently needed to know who to contact to raise the issue on behalf of the employees. They got back to me yesterday, 21 October, after being prompted three times. I waited 17 days and their response was, “You might need to give us some more information.” If I cannot represent those employees as an MP and make any difference to their lives, and they cannot as workers, who else can?
Madam Deputy Speaker, you are looking at me like you want me to stop—[Interruption.] No? Oh, that’s excellent.

Rosie Winterton: I am sure the hon. Lady is aware that there are a great number of speakers, but I am quite happy for her to finish her remarks.

Anne McLaughlin: I have had less than half the time that the hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) had, but I thought his speech was great anyway.
I want to talk about some other people who have been prevented from working from home—namely, MPs. We can participate virtually in question sessions, and when it comes to voting we can nominate a proxy, but we cannot participate virtually in debates such as these. I heard the Leader of the House confirm this morning that the virtual Parliament would be extended to Easter, so we will be able to speak in question sessions and nominate a proxy vote, but we will not be able to take part in the debates that are the lifeblood of our democracy.
I was interested in the so-called reasoning behind that decision in response, this morning, to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard),  who again questioned why MPs who cannot be here in person cannot participate in debates virtually. His microphone was muted and there was a 10-second gap while that was resolved. The Leader of the House then used that as a justification for not allowing virtual debates, but he had just said that it was fine to participate virtually in question sessions. The question session that they were taking part in had a glitch of 10 seconds, but the question got asked and it got answered, and the roof did not cave in and nobody came to any harm. No catastrophe would fall upon us if there were such a glitch in a debate like this, so why does this place, which many like to think of as the mother of all Parliaments and a great bastion of democracy, silence the voices of MPs who, through no fault of their own, cannot be here in person? Worse, why does it silence the voices of their constituents?
Madam Deputy Speaker, I will stop there, even though I have a good eight minutes more, because I know lots of people want to get in.

Rosie Winterton: I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for being so understanding. I am going to reduce the time limit to four minutes, but Members will need to brace themselves for the fact that not everyone will get in. However, there is a whole day’s debate on covid-19 on Monday 2 November, the day we come back from recess.

Luke Evans: It is a pleasure to speak in the general covid update debate. Last time I spoke, I welcomed the tiered approach the Government had put in place to deal with the covid virus, and today I am pleased to welcome the support the Government have put in place as a further measure that is more nuanced and more targeted to help those in most need. I have been asking questions today about road maps and plans for the future. If we start with the economic side, these questions are key. I met representatives of the Hinkley business improvement district last night, and one of the biggest questions they had was about what would happen if we moved from tier 1 to tier 2. I was pleased to be able to tell them that the Treasury and the Chancellor were listening. That message was heard, and new support was put in place. That security will be greatly welcomed in Bosworth and up and down the country.
The other thing that businesses need is some form of certainty and a road map of where they are going. We are lucky in this House to have a learned Friend in my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), who is no longer in his place. He has highlighted areas about which I also have concerns after meeting constituents and businesses last Friday.
The wedding industry, the events and conference industry and the travel industry are all going to face difficulties because of the very nature of their business: the people business. The virus thrives on people’s interactions, and those industries feel as though they are now zombie businesses, because they are not officially closed, but they cannot open fully because there is no trade for them. I think it is reasonable to argue that, because of that, they need some certainty over what the future may hold for them, with a roadmap of how to get  there and what the support might look like after we have made choices in the hospitality sector.
Equally, there are non-fiscal measures we can take. We can relook at the levers that we may be able to pull to allow a change of use or the extension of licensing, so that businesses like those in the wedding sector can use their facilities in a different way. After all, they are keen to be open and keen to innovate. The Government need to give them the chance to do so.
I was also pleased to hear today about a further roadmap relating to health. I mentioned a couple of weeks ago to the Health Secretary and to the House the importance of knowing where we are going and how we can innovate to get our way out. It is fantastic news that laminar flow testing is being rolled out, because until we have a vaccine, this is the way to enable people to take responsibility of their own testing in organisations and hopefully even in their personal situation. When people go to school, when they go to the hospital or when they come to Westminster, they will be able to test themselves, find that they are negative and carry on with their daily life. Of course, if they are positive, they will be followed up and isolated in the correct way. It is really important and will be a stalwart step until we get the vaccine.
In the Health Committee, I was pleased to hear from Professor Edmunds that SAGE feels that a vaccine is coming. That is important to factor in when we think about what lockdown measures to take, because there is a big difference between waiting for months and waiting for years. That comes with a word of caution. From the very start, Chris Whitty—both in private and public announcements—said that there are a range of measures that are easy to take and that all have a different weighted impact. If we are getting a vaccine and improved testing, we cannot lose sight of the simple basics that must be in place: hands, face, space. Without doing those things, it will be very hard to control the virus, even with the testing and when we start to roll out a mass vaccination. I am therefore keen that the Government are clear in articulating, and continue to push, the message of hands, face, space, because the virus has opened Pandora’s box, and what we really need to see is the guarded hope left.

Colleen Fletcher: There is an increasing weight of evidence showing that covid-19 and the response to the pandemic—however necessary to contain and slow the spread of the virus—is having a significant impact on and leading to a growing epidemic in mental ill health. As we are forced to contend with the fear, stress and worry of contagion for ourselves and our loved ones, these feelings are compounded by anxieties about the monumental changes to everyday life.
Working from home, shielding, furlough, self-isolation, home schooling, face coverings, and a lack of physical contact with family and friends have become the new normal. Faced with these new realities and a growing sense of uncertainty, we are already beginning to see the impact of the pandemic on people’s mental health. Social isolation, loneliness, bereavement, health anxieties, loss of income and jobs, poor or unaffordable housing, a lack of access to outdoor space, and working in frontline services are triggering mental health conditions or exacerbating existing ones.
Covid-19 has undoubtedly increased the drivers of worsening mental health, but at the same time it has reduced access to and interrupted the provision of essential mental health services, just when they are needed most. To compound the problem further, the pandemic has diminished many of the coping mechanisms that people typically use to deal with stress, worry and anxiety, such as meeting up with family and friends, exercising or going out to work. As a result, there is a real fear that we are building up considerable mental health problems for the future, and could see a wave of acute and untreated mental illness after the pandemic.
To avert a mental health crisis, we must ensure that mental health needs are treated as a central component of our response to and recovery from the covid-19 outbreak. We need to increase significantly investment and capacity in services during the pandemic and beyond, to ensure that all people living with mental ill health have continued access to treatment to prevent their conditions from worsening and becoming more acute. In Coventry, there are some excellent community groups delivering tailored local support to tackle these growing problems. I recently visited one such group, the Mote House Community Trust. I saw the fantastic work that it is doing in conjunction with our health services to combat loneliness, and deliver positive health and wellbeing outcomes.
From tomorrow, at just past midnight, Coventry is due to move to tier 2 of the local covid alert system. Although there was a sad inevitability about this decision, given the rising number of coronavirus cases in the city, the new tighter restrictions such as those imposed on other towns and cities in tiers 2 and 3 will simply add fuel to the fire of the mental health epidemic, unless we can ensure that the right support is in place. I sincerely hope that Ministers will confirm that mental health services and social prescribing schemes will be given the requisite support to tackle the growing mental health epidemic before we reach crisis point. After all, failing to recognise the importance of good mental health and invest appropriately in services now risks storing up significant mental health and physical wellbeing problems for the future. That would come at an unacceptable human, social and economic cost.

Desmond Swayne: If we were to ask a scientist, “How do you stop a virus that spreads through human contact?”, we should not be surprised if he answers by telling us that we must stop human contact as far as is possible. It falls to us, however, to decide whether the price is worth paying in terms of the misery and unemployment it generates. We are talking about a generation marred in their life chances; and mindboggling borrowing that we will have to pay off over years, which will diminish proper investment in public services and industry. All that, and for what? The Secretary of State has told us this week that the average number of deaths is consistent with the long-term average for this time of year. Some 1,600 people die every day, but covid is by no means chief among their killers. It is no good to say, “Well, every other jurisdiction in the world is following basically the same policy”. That would strike me as herd stupidity.
Speaking of herds, I understand that a number of Ministers have questioned the existence of herd immunity, which is odd, given that a successful vaccine programme  relies on herd immunity and that is the basket into which the Government have placed all their eggs. We can throw into this mix: the fact that we appear determined to claim every possible death as a covid death, as though we were in some sort of international league and competition; the failure to be absolutely up front on the limitations of the PCR—polymerase chain reaction—test as a means of tracking the disease; and the way we use large numbers to terrify people. We have been told that intensive care units are at 80% of their capacity, but of course at this time of year that is exactly what we would expect them to be. No wonder our constituents are writing to us with ever greater conspiracy theories—it is because our actions defy rational explanation.
Hallelujah—the consensus has been broken; the Prime Minister has finally resisted the advice he has been given by the scientists, just at a time when the Opposition have embraced it with enthusiasm. Now at least an argument can be had, and proper scrutiny and freedom from groupthink will arise. The danger is that if we do not change the way in which we respond to this disease, in years to come historians will pick over how a prosperous society entered into such a devastating act of self-harm.

John Spellar: In business questions today, the Leader of the House brushed off my suggestion for a specific debate where the Government could present their evidence that the closures in and restrictions on the hospitality, sport and leisure industries would have a significant impact on the course of the pandemic. I was trying to be helpful. Two weeks ago, the Prime Minister was asked:
“is there a scientific basis for the 10 pm rule?...If there is a basis, why do the Government not do themselves a favour and publish it?”—[Official Report, 7 October 2020; Vol. 681, c. 897.]
The industry would not necessarily have been happy with that, but it would at least have been comprehensible. Indeed, had it been published earlier, things may have been even better because those in the industry would not have had to spend considerable sums on changing their premises, only to have that disregarded. They may have the slightest suspicion that the evidence is non-existent or at best very thin, and that the policy has been driven more by the desire to be seen to be doing something, but at huge cost to this industry, which is not only a huge part of the economy, but part of what makes our country stand out in the world. What a vast industry we are talking about: pubs and clubs; restaurants and cafés; betting shops; bingo halls and casinos; cinemas and theatres; gyms; music venues; wedding venues; football and rugby clubs and racecourses—the list goes on—as well as the myriad suppliers and transport companies that service them. There are hundreds of thousands of businesses, some international brands, but most small businesses whose owners have invested their life’s work, dreams and savings in them. They have been hanging on, hoping for better times. The Government’s response is depriving them of that hope. Of course they need relief and the belated help that was announced today, but they also need customers and trade.
That is another reason why the Chancellor’s contribution today was disappointing. There seemed to be no recognition of the Government as a customer—a major purchaser  of goods and services. The Government could have a big impact on employment and economic revival. There was no indication of any sense of urgency in Whitehall for that.
As an example, the order for fleet solid support ships has been hanging around with the Ministry of Defence for years, and they are needed. This week, the Defence Secretary announced that the MOD will be inviting bids for a British-based contract, but it will not issue the invitation until the spring. Why further dither and delay? Get a move on. Get industry gearing up. The same goes for buses, trains, cars, trucks, hospitals, schools, road and rail fares—the list is endless. What that means in the end is jobs, jobs, jobs. Earlier in the year, the Prime Minister claimed to be channelling his inner Franklin Roosevelt. Well, let him take a lesson from the Works Progress Administration in the US and get real projects—the output but also the work—rolling fast.
The Secretary of State talked about suppressing the virus until we get a vaccine, but let us be clear: we have only ever eliminated one virus—smallpox—and that after many decades. We face significant harm, here and around the world, from viruses, bacteria and fungal conditions, but even with a vaccine, thousands die of flu every year. We all acknowledge the incredible efforts of the scientific community here and around the world to create a vaccine, but they rightly warn that they cannot be sure of success. As the PM himself acknowledged, after 18 years, we still have not found an effective vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome. Furthermore, if we do get an effective vaccine, it will not be effective for all—no vaccine is—and that is before we consider the constraints of production and the need to overcome resistance from anti-vaxxers. As I have said before, we probably will have to learn to co-exist with the virus while maintaining the economy and society. The sooner we face up to that, the better.

Ben Spencer: We face a difficult winter. Many areas of England are under heightened restrictions, including Elmbridge, part of which forms part of my constituency. We face the national challenge of a new disease, with a population that is largely unexposed to it and has built no immunity to it through either prior infection or other means, such as vaccination. It spreads easily and quickly, and can make people in high-risk groups, particularly the elderly, seriously ill. It can spiral out of control and overwhelm our health service.
I supported the first lockdown and I support the current restrictions. As an NHS doctor, I say with all my body and soul that we cannot let the NHS be overwhelmed. But lockdowns and restrictions are deeply harmful in themselves. The long-term effects will be profound—a higher burden of disease from poverty, with associated costs in lives; loss of livelihoods; misery and damage from isolation, and reduction in liberties. We need a way out.
My constituents are feeling it—especially those who are now in tier 2 restrictions in Elmbridge—and I pay tribute to them for their resolve. They rightly ask me, “What’s the way out? How does this end? How do we escape the cycle of lockdown?” The current strategy is to suppress until there is a vaccine, but what if there is  never a vaccine? As people start to tire of lockdown, increasing coercion and punitive measures are being put in place. On my commute from Runnymede and Weybridge, I travel to Waterloo station, and I have seen the signs there change—from a £100 fine for not wearing a face mask, to £3,000, to £6,000—in the course of a few months. It is inevitable that greater coercion will be needed. When does that stop?
Coercion is illusory. It works briefly, but after a while it fails, unless we take people with us and they own the decision. Of course, in a public health response to an infectious disease, we cannot have a free-for-all, but at the same time, in my constituency, I see people at low risk from covid who ignore the guidance because it will not directly affect them and all they see is harm from restrictions. I see people at high risk ignoring guidance because life is short and they want to see their grandkids. I see people terrified of covid hiding away from the world. Day in, day out, people make decisions about their health risks, such as to smoke or not to smoke—indeed, given that 76,000 people die every year from smoking, probably more people have already died this year from smoking than from covid. People decide whether to put salt on their chips, or not to eat chips. We all make compromises and trade-offs, but rather than the state deciding those trade-offs, we must find a way to let people decide their own.

Chris Bryant: Is not the problem that whether I choose to have salt on my chips is a matter for my health, but when I take risks with covid, I take them not just for myself but for everybody else with whom I interact, and for the whole of society?

Ben Spencer: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and I will come to precisely that point in due course.
I supported the first lockdown, and I support the current restrictions, but we need a way out that works, irrespective of the invention of a vaccine. We need a way out that supports people to take their own decisions and respects free choice but, as the hon. Gentleman said, we must also protect society from an infectious disease. Such a system needs to be sustained for a long time, and those measures will need to be in place for a long time.
It is easy to criticise, but it is more difficult to put forward other options. We therefore need a debate about what a plan B could look like. We started with a national lockdown, but that was too blunt. We rightly moved to targeted measures, which are better, but still not great. The geographical area is too large, and people do not live their lives by local authority boundaries. The next logical step is to shrink the geography further—to the household or individual—and to have a system that allows people to make decisions for themselves regarding their own risks and the people they come across socially or at work.
We must use our testing capabilities in a targeted, risk-based manner, so that those at high risk, should they choose to, can shield and have support to do that. Those at low risk would be able to live their lives more freely, should they choose to do so. At the same time, we must ensure that things do not spiral out of control, with broader measures and restrictions available in reserve if needed. We must invest in our NHS surge capacity, and carry out research into vaccines and treatments.
The challenge, of course, is how we support those at medium risk, or those who live or work with high-risk individuals, and we need to have that debate. Lockdowns are not a cure for covid. They only regulate the pressure on the health service and, important as that is, in time they can, and will, be worse than the disease itself. We need to have that difficult debate and there is no easy solution. While I suggest that we wait for the phase 3 trials of vaccines, which come out imminently, we must start putting flesh on the bones of a plan B, based on individual choice, and consider a pilot in the UK. To get through this pandemic, whatever we do will be difficult. Difficult decisions have to be made, and more difficult decisions remain to be made.

Neale Hanvey: In his statement earlier today, the Chancellor claimed to be targeting support where it is most needed, but one early and obvious lesson from the covid pandemic was the disinvestment and chronic underfunding of social care, which led to a system that was ill-prepared for that pandemic. The 2018 report into social care from the other place, led by Lord Forsyth, found that the social care system needed around £8 billion, just to return quality and access to the sub-optimal levels of 2009-10. According to Age UK, councils now say that they need an additional £6 billion on top of that to meet the extra costs of covid-19. Therefore, a minimum investment of £14 billion is urgently required to return social care in England to a pre-austerity position.
The social care system entered the pandemic underfunded, understaffed, undervalued, and at risk of collapse. Any response to covid-19, however vast or comprehensive, would have needed to contend with that legacy of political neglect. It is telling of this Government’s approach to social care that a recent Health Foundation report found evidence that
“the government acted too slowly and did not do enough to support social care users and staff”.
As has become all too clear throughout the recent crisis, in England protecting social care has been given far more priority than the NHS. As we have all witnessed, the Government’s handling of the covid crisis has left much to be desired, as we have seen with most clarity in the major and widespread problems that have been experienced in social care in England. In the most extreme cases, councils are now meeting a person’s needs only if not doing so would breach their human rights.
The right hon. Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt) is on the record as claiming that he wanted to produce a 10-year plan for social care to match the one drawn up for the NHS two years ago, but that that was blocked by the Treasury. He said:
“The political pressure is never as great for social care funding but the reality is additional NHS funding will be wasted if we don’t sort out social care.”
He is right: the crisis in social care cannot be ignored. Just as the numbers of people going without care will continue to rise, in particular with respect to long covid sufferers, so will the pressure on the NHS and the public purse. We are a year on from the statement on the steps of No. 10 in which the Prime Minister claimed that he would “fix” social care, but like so many of the Prime Minister’s promises, that claim was without substance.
When the Minister for Care appeared before the Health and Social Care Committee last week, I asked why the Government’s professed dedication to the reform of social care was not reflected in policy. I received a terse response:
“Clearly, the Department has been dealing with a pandemic.”
But that is precisely why reform must push ahead. I echoed the words of the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey):
“The Covid crisis makes the need to fix social care more urgent, not less.”
Despite all that, the Minister was completely unable to provide any response beyond a vague, non-committal commitment. If that is a measure of the Government’s commitment to target support where it is most needed, they have failed to learn the most vital lesson of the pandemic.

Chris Green: The Government and the whole of British society have made an amazing response to covid and to the challenge that we have faced. We knew very little about it at the beginning, but we have evolved and adapted with time. Society now is so different—who would have believed at the beginning that we would be in this position now, sanitising our hands every time we went into a shop, wearing masks and socially distancing?
We know far more today than we did then, and we understand the impact and cost of covid, but we are also in an increasingly good position to understand the cost of the lockdown. We hear figures about millions of cancer screening appointments and tens of millions of GP appointments not being taken up, and we understand far better that in the weeks, months and years ahead there will be a huge cost from the lockdown, but the details have not been adequately explained to the British people as a whole or to right hon. and hon. Members of Parliament. We heard moments ago about colleagues asking questions—quite reasonable, quite straightforward questions—and getting a six-word answer.
I have written to the Secretary of State to raise concerns about Bolton, which has been in a particularly difficult position with a rather severe lockdown. Constituents tell me about the impact on their mental health, their physical health and their ability to get treatment—it has a cost. I wrote to the Secretary of State on 29 September to raise concerns that in Bolton borough 20,000 fewer people than last year have had a referral from a GP to hospital. Serious treatments have not been taken up as a result. This is serious—it is life and death—for my constituents, and I think it is replicated around the country.
I have yet to receive a response to my letter, but I do have an answer to my written question about what action has been taken in relation to the 20,000 fewer referrals from GPs to hospitals this year than last. The answer that came back was:
“No specific assessment has been made.”
That is 20,000 people in Bolton as a whole whom GPs think should have a hospital appointment of one form or another. I do not know how many of that 20,000 would be in the category of life or death, but I suspect a very significant number. I suspect that this would be replicated right across the country. To get a six word answer —“No specific assessment has been made”—to cover  that 20,000 is disappointing to say the least. It is also covering a health time bomb that will explode. That is already happening at the moment. Far more needs to be done so. Will my hon. Friend commit to delivering a covid lockdown health impact assessment for every constituency around the country?

Lyn Brown: In West Ham, we had the highest number of people furloughed in the country—almost 30,000. All of those people and so many more who are self-employed are potentially at risk of real economic hardship, and we simply do not know how many more will lose their work over the coming winter. The scope for damage to our already deprived and very vulnerable communities in Newham is vast.
As we know, there are differences in economies across the country. In my constituency, many parents work two or three jobs to pay their rent and their living costs. Let me tell Members quickly what it is like in Newham. The lowest quartile of private rent is higher than the lowest quartile of earnings. A month’s wages does not even cover the rent on its own. In many cases, if parents lose one source of income they will be under threat of homelessness and it will immediately mean cutting back on the things that children need and that parents want to provide, such as food, clothes, shoes for the winter, internet access and books. In this wealthy country of ours, losing that second or third job will leave parents with no choice but to cut back on food—first for themselves and then for their children. We know that when parents are pushed into poverty, the impacts can be lifelong on their children’s health, education and opportunity.
Last week, the End Child Poverty coalition estimated that almost 20,000 children were in poverty in West Ham alone—20,000 children! That is more than half the children in our local schools, and those numbers are from before the pandemic began. We have 20,000 children living in poverty in just one constituency. I worry about how bad this is going to get even if the Chancellor does not follow through with his threat to cut universal credit next year, and I hope to God he does not.
Around 575 school days have been lost since March. Only 8% of children with special educational needs and disabilities or under the protection of a social worker attended school during lockdown—8%! How can schools or local authorities identify the children who are at risk of abuse or neglect when they are not being seen? Self-isolation for covid is a really quick excuse that can be used for everything. Our services need to find new ways to proactively check children at risk and they need the resources to enable them to do that.
In my area, county lines see gangs grooming children with life-destroying consequences. This problem is now even more acute, because normally extended absences from schools are one of the clear signs that a child is being exploited to run drugs and put at risk of seeing and doing things that no young person should see or do. If preventative support is not given, it will create more damage in our communities and more costs for the public purse in the future, but most of all it will kill the hopes and the dreams of the children and the parents in deprived communities, cause much pain and waste so, so much potential.

Scott Benton: May I place on record my thanks to the residents of Blackpool for the tremendous sacrifices they have made over the last seven months? The way in which my community has risen to the challenges we have faced has been fantastic to see, and I would like to extend my gratitude to our amazing key workers and all of those volunteers who continue to keep Blackpool going. There are too many fantastic individuals to mention them all, but it would be remiss of me not to highlight the fantastic contributions that Linda Mcevilly, Ryan Smith and Mark Butcher have made over the last few months.
Infection rates in Blackpool have been consistently below the Lancashire average, and as such, I had hoped that Blackpool would remain in tier 2 in the short term so that hospitality businesses could stay open during the upcoming half-term period, which is a most important time of year for my tourism-based local economy. There is no doubt whatsoever that the increased restrictions will financially hurt businesses in my constituency. Most work is seasonal, and businesses are now staring at a bleak winter, following a heavily disrupted summer.
I have been contacted by a significant number of businesses in the sector, including hoteliers, all of whom have exactly the same concerns: how can the Government impose restrictions and advise holidaymakers not to travel to Blackpool, but not order them to close so that they can access the local restrictions support grant and the extended job support scheme? I welcome the additional measures outlined by the Chancellor today, and the hundreds of billions of pounds that this Conservative Government have already spent to protect people’s jobs and businesses since March. An additional £30 million for businesses across Lancashire and the £4.6 million un-ringfenced grants given to Blackpool Council only today are also to be welcomed.
But such are the challenges in my constituency that we will continue to require additional support. It may be pointing out the obvious, but our small hotels cannot survive on local bookings alone. Winter is coming, and the tourism industry will not survive without further support. I would urge the Treasury to allow small hotels and B&Bs that voluntarily close to access the grants and the extended job support scheme available to businesses that have already been mandated to close.
I appreciate that health considerations have meant that Blackpool must be included with Lancashire in the highest tier of restrictions, and I was grateful that local leaders put politics aside to work together and agree a sensible solution. However, we are obviously seeing contrasting levels of virus across the UK, so a full national lockdown or a circuit breaker would be a blunt instrument affecting businesses and jobs in places with low infection rates.
The tiered system is much more precise and targets additional measures exactly where they are required, and for this reason it has my full support. We simply have to give the tiered approach enough time to prove effective. Arbitrary decisions to close specific industries in the highest tier cannot be made by Ministers without clear and transparent evidence. For example, we need better communication to explain decisions such as closing pubs at 10 pm and the enforced closure of betting shops in tier 3. The latter seems to be a particularly unjustified  decision, which will cost jobs and cost the Exchequer a substantial tax revenue, and for which there is apparently no scientific basis.

Elliot Colburn: I want to take this opportunity to recognise some of the work being done in my own constituency of Carshalton and Wallington, but also to highlight some of the challenges that these various sectors continue to face as we deal with a big pandemic.
To start with the health and social care sector, as a former NHS worker, I know how dedicated the health and social care staff in the United Kingdom are. St Helier Hospital in my constituency was one of the first hospitals to have to deal with a case of coronavirus and sadly also had one of the first confirmed deaths from the virus, which has taken far too many of our loved ones from us too soon. The hospital’s incredible efforts in caring for patients, consoling grieving families and looking out for the mental health of staff, not to mention keeping other hospital services going, is to be applauded.
The hospital is being supported by the fantastic teams working in our local care homes, and I want to thank providers such as Churchill and MHA, which have engaged constructively with me throughout the pandemic. The care sector plays a vital role, and the pandemic has shone a clear light on the challenges that the sector faces. I look forward to seeing the Government’s proposals for a long-term, sustainable social care plan.
When we talk about the health response to the pandemic, I want to ensure that we do not overlook the fantastic work of our local community pharmacists. I was privileged to have a call with some of our pharmacists earlier in the week. They told me how extremely busy they have been and how they have had to work exceptionally long hours to catch up on dispensing, after seeing hundreds more patients in need of advice on minor ailments. I believe that pharmacists can play an even more vital role in the future by making better use of their advisory capacity and ability to deliver vaccines, taking pressure off GPs, and using their community links to improve the health of local people. I hope that the Minister, in winding up the debate, will say something about the recently published Ernst and Young report on pharmacy funding and how we can further support community pharmacists.
The coronavirus response has not only been about the health and social care sector. It has brought out the best of the entire community in Carshalton and Wallington, and I particularly want to pay tribute to the voluntary sector. Community Action Sutton, Volunteer Centre Sutton and Age UK Sutton have harnessed the good will and the power of hundreds of volunteers. I have met some truly inspirational people as I have joined them to deliver PPE. I thank them for everything that they have done to keep the community going and look after others during the pandemic.
I launched an “unsung heroes” scheme, as many other Members did, to recognise those who have gone above and beyond to help others during the pandemic.  I wish I could list the hundreds of amazing stories I heard—people like Connal Donovan and the team at the Duke’s Head pub, who have used their kitchens to cook for elderly people; Su Robertson, the housing  manager at Laurel Lodge Retirement Living; and Carshalton High School for Girls, which created over 200 items of PPE for the local hospital. There are so many examples that I could give.
Residents have worked hard to keep the virus down and, understandably, they are quite concerned about being moved into tier 2 restrictions, but I am encouraged that four further testing facilities will open up in the borough, and I was pleased to hear the Chancellor announce further financial support packages today for tier 2 areas such as Carshalton and Wallington. This has been an incredibly tough time for businesses and particularly the self-employed, so I am grateful that the Chancellor has heard those calls and taken appropriate action. As we continue to fight this virus, we need to find a balance between protecting the economy and protecting health, and I am hopeful that, as we continue to tackle this virus over the coming weeks and months, we can strike that balance and come through this together.

Chi Onwurah: Sometimes it feels like we are living in a parallel dimension. When we think of our lives a year ago, it feels like another galaxy far, far away. For many of my constituents —particularly those isolating on their own—it is the impression of being stuck in a parallel life, subject to confusing and inconsistent communications, battling alone through a long tunnel with no light at the end that is so dispiriting, undermining mental wellbeing and the success of public health measures. That is why we need a circuit breaker now and a road map to control the virus.
I imagine another parallel universe—one where the Government got a grip on the virus back in March and did not let go, and where the Secretary of State did not decide to stop tracking community infections in March but instead took up the offer of local environmental health officers and gave local authority public health teams, such as the one in Newcastle led by the excellent Eugene Milne, the responsibility and resources to set up local community tracking and tracing. As Allyson Pollock, professor of public health at Newcastle University, said in April,
“You need people on old-fashioned things like telephones or going door to door and they need to be local teams because they need to understand the local communities.”
The fact is that without the Government’s Health and Social Care Act 2012, which led to the decimation of public health disease control and both its centralisation and fragmentation; without 10 years of austerity, which slashed the capacity of the state and our public services and drove up inequality, on which the virus feeds; without a Secretary of State who put his faith in technology, when, as an engineer, I know that it is only ever people who are the solution; without a Prime Minister who is scared of difficult decisions and unable to grasp detail; and without a Government steeped in the ideology of the free market knows best, we could be in that world.
Instead, we find today that only 60% of Test and Trace contacts are reached by the £10 billion Serco test and trace. We should be in a position where we know where the disease is, so that while coronavirus remains a deadly threat, we feel confident that we know where it is  and how to avoid it. In Newcastle, we are battling to stay in tier 2, and I urge everyone to follow the coronavirus measures—the security measures—but I also say that without a proper track and trace, we are working blind, and the failure to control the disease is a failure of the Government and not my constituents.
Finally, I want to talk about jobs and the re-emergence of mass unemployment on Tyneside, which would be another failure of this Government. Two weeks ago, I held a business roundtable in Newcastle and I was struck by how hard so many businesses are working to do the right thing, investing thousands and in covid security, keeping their customers safe, keeping their employees safe and protecting jobs. I really want to urge the Government to work with local authorities, to work with Newcastle City Council, to communicate effectively to businesses who feel betrayed and to ensure that the support is there for businesses as well as a plan that they can follow, but also to make sure that no one is excluded. We have seen mass unemployment in Newcastle under a previous Conservative Government. If our viable sectors—and our sectors are viable—and our viable jobs are destroyed during this pandemic, it will be another failure of a Conservative Government.

Robert Largan: The current crisis is difficult for so many reasons, but overwhelmingly, I have seen it bring out the best in the people of High Peak. Back in April, I launched the High Peak hero awards to recognise those who have gone above and beyond to help others during the pandemic. I have received a huge number of nominations and it has been wonderful to learn about the efforts of some truly extraordinary local people. I wish I had time to name them all, but let me give a few examples.
Leon Haynes, at the Surrey Arms in Glossop, tirelessly delivered essential shopping and meals to those unable to leave their homes. Hayley Roebuck, a care worker at Goyt Valley House care home in New Mills left her family to live in at the care home to minimise the risk of infecting vulnerable residents. Helen and Phil Flanagan, landlords at the Peels Arms, paid out of their own pocket to supply meals to the elderly and vulnerable in and around Padfield. Lia Roos from the Residents of Fairfield Association, has been running a Foodshare scheme in Buxton, delivering food to the vulnerable, those self-isolating and key workers having to work longer hours—I could go on. Needless to say, I am incredibly proud to represent the people of High Peak.
Turning to the challenge that we now face, I welcome the Chancellor’s additional measures to protect jobs and businesses in areas such as Glossopdale that have been under tier 2 restrictions. Those measures are vital, though I hope that we can continue to consider the impact on businesses in the supply chain and in the events industry, which have also been very badly affected and will need to play a vital role in the economic recovery.
Thinking ahead to this winter and where we go next, I want to talk about restrictions and the impact that they have on people’s lives. It is essential that we do all we can to prevent the NHS from being overwhelmed to help to save lives, and that needs a multifaceted approach. As we learn more and more about coronavirus, we need to follow the evidence and make the difficult decisions  about restrictions and public health guidance. We also need to pull out all the stops when it comes to researching a vaccine, something on which the UK is currently leading the world.
However, we also need to recognise that there is a huge cost to these restrictions, and there is a difficult balancing act between fighting coronavirus and other public health challenges. I am increasingly concerned about the long-term impact on our nation’s mental health and other serious health issues. How many illnesses have got worse because people have not felt able to get the treatment they need? How many serious conditions have not been diagnosed in time because screening and scans have not been possible? A good example in my constituency is the recent commissioning decision by NHS England to withdraw the breast cancer screening units from New Mills, Buxton and Chapel-en-le-Frith, citing covid as the reason. Instead, women in the High Peak are being asked to travel to Bakewell. Given the state of the roads and public transport in the Peak District, especially during winter, I am worried that many will not be able to get to appointments. A huge number of local people signed my petition calling for the reinstatement of the screening units, and I will meet Health Ministers shortly to discuss how we can do that. I desperately hope that we can get the right outcome.
I absolutely support the necessary measures that the Government are taking, but I also believe that we need to start a national conversation about how we can live with covid in the long term. We must not get ourselves locked into a never-ending cycle of constantly tightening and easing restrictions with no end in sight. To do that, we need further to increase capacity in the NHS, especially in intensive care. Since the start of the crisis, the Government have achieved a lot in that area but there is a lot more to do. I have been campaigning for new urgent care centres at Tameside Hospital and Stepping Hill Hospital as well as a major new health centre in Buxton. We need them now more than ever.
The road ahead is uncertain. It is challenging, but I am confident that High Peak and the rest of the country will get through this together.

Chris Bryant: I want to talk about a dangerous bit of fake science that is doing the rounds—the so-called Great Barrington declaration which calls for focused protection for the vulnerable and ending all lockdowns and restrictions so that everyone else should immediately be allowed to resume life as normal. It sounds wonderful, doesn’t it? Idyllic. Some 6,300 people have signed the declaration. That sounds impressive, but that is a tiny, tiny proportion of all the medical professionals in the world, the vast majority of whom dismiss that approach out of hand.
Many of the signatories to the declaration are not world-leading epidemiologists and virologists. Many of them are homeopaths and self-certified therapists. They include the famous Dr Johnny Bananas, the Rev. Booker Clownn, Dr Person Fakename and Mr Matt Hancock, although not the one of this parish. I remember what fake science did over the MMR vaccine when lots of journalists paid court to one man, Dr Andrew Wakefield, simply because he had the title Doctor in front of his name. That caused immeasurable harm to a very important vaccine programme.
Some of the people who signed the declaration told us earlier this year that the virus would just melt away by the summer and others guaranteed that there would not be a second wave. Yet some people still support them. None of the declaration’s assertions is supported by evidence. They do not even pretend to be. There are no references to peer-reviewed research; they are simply assertions.
It is completely wrong to call people who believe all this stuff “nutcases”. I did earlier this week and I wish that I had not used that word the other day. I have worked long enough in acquired brain injury and as a personal counsellor to others to know that that is wrong. I apologise. But this really is a fringe opinion shared by conspiracy theorists, funded by hard-right economic libertarian extremists in the United States of America and advocated entirely by fake scientists. Ignorance is one thing. Deliberate ignorance really is stupidity.
At the heart of the declaration is the belief that we need to acquire herd immunity by letting everybody get infected. The facts—and there are no alternative facts here—are that there is no evidence that contracting covid-19 grants long-term immunity to future infection. We already know that one can catch it twice and it is not yet a year old. Other coronaviruses only grant temporary immunity. Fact.

Bob Stewart: To support the hon. Gentleman’s case, may I point out that if we could achieve herd immunity, we would not contract diseases like measles? We still get them, so herd immunity is impossible to achieve.

Chris Bryant: In this case, the point is that we will not achieve herd immunity just by trying to let everyone get the disease. That is an immoral proposition. We have all heard the line that this virus is not that dangerous and is less dangerous than flu. I am sure that we have all had emails about it. The facts—and again there are no alternative facts here—are that covid is more easily transmitted than flu and has more complications for more people. Between January and August 2020, there were 48,168 deaths due to covid-19—not associated with it—compared with 13,619 deaths due to pneumonia and 394 deaths due to influenza. The number of deaths due to covid up to 31 August this year was higher than those due to influenza and pneumonia in every single year since 1959, including years when we did not have a vaccine for flu.
The other theme of the great declaration is supposed to be focused protection. Again, that sounds great—“let’s protect the most vulnerable”—but we cannot just shut the elderly and vulnerable away and throw away the key. They do not live in hermetically sealed units, funnily enough. They rely on nurses, carers, home helps and family members. All those people would presumably have to be locked away. Is somebody going to suggest that the most vulnerable communities—in fact, the BAME community—are en masse all going to be locked away, as well as the overweight, no doubt, and all the men? Of course, that is a complete and utter nonsense. By one estimate, we would be incarcerating a quarter of the whole UK population.
There is a cruelty at the heart of this proposal: it is basically survival of the fittest. Yes, it does make me angry when people propose it. It makes me angry for those who have lost loved ones this year, who seem to be ignored. It makes me angry for the NHS staff who have  slogged their way through the misery on our behalf and need us all to realise that there is a much better creed than survival of the fittest, and it is that we are all in this together.

Natalie Elphicke: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate. For many months, we have all been engaged in hand-to-hand, all-encompassing national combat with the coronavirus. We are deep, deep in the trenches. In our fear of the virus, we must not lose ourselves—our compassion, decency and humanity, our sense of right and wrong, our very values as a nation and the progress we have made as a society.
We stand at a crossroads as we face down the next wave. In our mission to save lives from the virus, we are increasing the risk of physical and mental health harm, and no person is more at risk of such harm than the very poorest and most vulnerable in our society, including those who are most dependent on others: the homeless and destitute, the mentally ill, those in care homes and hospitals and in our prisons.
As Winston Churchill said, the test of a civilised society is how it treats its prisoners. Since the pandemic hit, prisons have been in severe lockdown. Just this week, the chief inspector of prisons, Peter Clarke, described the dangerous situation in very bleak terms. He has raised real concerns about long-term damage to prisoners’ mental and physical health, as prisoners are locked up for 23, 23 and a half or even 24 hours a day, day after day in the name of covid.
To avoid any misunderstanding, I have researched the position in prisons from Swansea to Stafford and beyond. I have taken note of contributions from the other place, as well as speaking to many involved with prisoners, including current prison chaplains, prison charities and many others besides. In raising this national matter in this debate, my remarks should not be taken to refer to the situation of my son Thomas or his father’s prison.
There is no doubt that the report of the chief inspector of prisons should be considered with grave concern, because it also affects the lives of those outside prison, particularly the children of prisoners. The National Information Centre on Children of Offenders estimates that there are more than 300,000 children of prisoners. Of those, around 10,000 each week had prison visits before covid. That is 10,000 visits by children to a parent each and every week. For thousands of prisoners and their children, these vital visits in person and by video call have stopped or can be scheduled only during school hours during the week, so school-aged children are cut off from their parent entirely.
Despite assurances that secure phones will be made available during covid for prisoners without access to phones in their cells, several thousand prisoners have no such access to a cell-based phone, so they are unable to speak to their children, sometimes for days on end. As covid continues, days turn into weeks and weeks turn into months. Now they look to turn into years. This is an inhumane, dangerous and unsustainable position.
In addition to family visits and calls, in many prisons there is no access to a library or a gym. There is no daily exercise hour of exercise, walking around that small yard  in the drizzling rain. There are no skills courses, no education, no English language lessons—there is nothing at all to help prisoners in that situation. I hope that, by raising this matter today, we will take urgent steps to avoid long-term physical and mental health harm in our prison population.

Munira Wilson: There has been, quite rightly, much discussion of the mental health impact of covid during the pandemic. I have spoken about it on a number of occasions, largely with regard to children and young people and those working on our frontline in health and care, but today I will focus on two groups who have been largely forgotten and overlooked by the Government and are suffering the mental health impacts of the pandemic immensely: those excluded from financial support and unpaid carers.
We had a welcome statement from the Chancellor earlier, but those excluded from support since the start of the pandemic were yet again overlooked. We know well that those are largely self-employed freelancers and small business owners, especially in hard-hit industries such as the arts, the events industries and exhibitions, as well as many others. The financial struggle and anxiety is taking its toll on their mental health. They are struggling to put food on the table, support their families and keep a roof over their heads. ExcludedUK has already reported four suicides and large-scale insomnia and depression among those affected. My hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone), the chair of the gaps in support all-party parliamentary group, wrote to the Health Secretary and the Chancellor on that on 16 July but has yet to receive a response. We requested financial support for that group, a boost in mental health services and support for debt counselling charities.

Jim Shannon: The hon. Lady is right that mental health is one of the core issues, but there are many issues. Does she agree that one thing the Government could do is provide a phone service that people could contact to get guidance on what to do? People are left to their own devices and, if that continues, clearly we will have very serious times.

Munira Wilson: The hon. Gentleman, as ever, makes a valid point. That is why I have been calling for additional support, whether signposting or helplines. We actually need a cross-Government strategy on mental health going forward.
On those who have been excluded from financial support, as the Chancellor remains intransigent on that point, I urge the Minister first to speak to her Treasury colleagues and ask them yet again to think again. Will she also step up mental health support for those who have been excluded? The mental health impacts will cost us a lot down the line.
The other very important group is the more than 9 million unpaid carers who are the forgotten heroes in our society. I hope the Minister agrees when I say that our health and care systems would be overwhelmed if it were not for the work of unpaid carers in our society. The Exchequer saves billions thanks to their work. Four out of five unpaid carers have taken on more caring responsibilities during lockdown, and almost two thirds have seen their mental health worsen during the pandemic.   Many have lost their access to respite care, which has affected their ability to earn money. She will be aware that carer’s allowance is pitifully low at £67 a week.
One thing that would help respite care and day care centres to reopen—Homelink in my constituency is taking all sorts of safety measures and is desperate to reopen—is access to regular testing. I raised that in the Chamber with the Secretary of State for Health on 7 July. He told me that a plan was in place and he would write to me about it. He never wrote to me, but I did not chase him about it because I heard that testing had been made available to day centres—briefly; I have now heard that it is no longer available. My council has spoken to colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care, who say that they cannot offer tests to respite care day centres. Those officials say that they are following SAGE priorities, and that suggests to me that there never was a plan. I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify that point. This is an issue for the Department, and I urge her to address it urgently, because respite care is a lifeline to so many unpaid carers. I also ask the Minister to speak to her colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions about addressing the woeful level of carer’s allowance. How can anyone be expected to survive on the equivalent of £1.91 an hour?
The Chancellor previously said to the public,
“you will not face this alone”.
Can we say, hand on heart, that unpaid carers and those whom the Chancellor has excluded from financial support have not been left alone? They feel abandoned and their mental health is suffering, so I urge the Minister to address these injustices.

Christopher Chope: I have said it before and I say it again: lockdowns, whether they are partial or total, are the wrong strategy. They are oppressive and profoundly unconservative. As a Conservative, I have always believed that the role of the state is to provide a safety net for those who cannot help themselves. Now we have a Conservative Government who are preventing people from helping themselves by engaging in economic activity, and, having prevented those people from engaging in economic activity, the Government are not providing a safety net to all of them. As the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) has just said, people are missing out because they are not allowed to engage in economic activity. In my constituency, people who work on cruise ships, people who work in the events industry and people who run luxury coaches are but three examples of the terrible cases that have come to my notice in recent days.
In their actions, the Government are treating citizens not as individuals but as part of a collective, and that is depersonalising. It is most obvious in the Government’s refusal to differentiate between those who have had covid-19 and are therefore immune, whether in the short or long term, and those who have not. If the state wanted to maximise liberty, it would remove the restrictions on freedom wherever it was possible so to do. What threat is there to public health from allowing those who are immune to covid-19 to go about their normal business? That is what happens in Sweden.
I asked the Secretary of State about that in a written question, but I have not had a reply, even though I referred in the debate on 13 October to that failure   to respond. I am afraid that that is indicative of the Government’s arrogance in this respect. In that debate, I also mentioned the number of deaths in Sweden. I have looked up the latest figures, and there have been two deaths in Sweden from covid-19 in the last five days. Sweden allows much more social activity than we in this country have done, and its Government rely on individual citizens to trust each other. Sweden’s citizens trust the Government, because the Government trust them. Why can we not do something similar?
We have heard the scaremongering, and the Department refuses to justify some of its most alarmist rhetoric. The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care said on 1 October that
“hundreds of thousands of deaths…would follow”
if the Government
“just let the virus rip”.—[Official Report, 1 October 2020; Vol. 681, c. 503.]
I asked if he would publish the evidence in support of that statement. He has failed to do that—because, I suspect, there is no evidence in support of that statement. That was gross scaremongering. Instead of trying to build people’s confidence to engage in economic and social activity, the Government are actively frightening them. All this talk about long covid is also designed to try to frighten people, rather than addressing the collateral damage that the Government’s oppressive measures are causing.

Navendu Mishra: I draw Members’ attention to my membership of trade unions and to donations from Unite the union, as outlined in my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
I welcome this debate on covid-19. Stockport and Greater Manchester have been hard hit by this pandemic. I pay tribute to the leader of Stockport Council, Elise Wilson, and to the Mayor of Greater Manchester, Andy Burnham, for all they have done. Stockport Council has much to be proud of in its response to date. The transfer of many council functions to home working has gone well, which is a credit to all the staff involved. Stockport was one of the most effective authorities in Greater Manchester in distributing covid grants to local businesses. Our council workers do a very important job in difficult circumstances, and I speak on behalf of my constituents when I thank them from the bottom of my heart.
I believe that Members on both sides of this House will agree that the hospitality sector has been particularly hard hit in recent times. My trade union Unite has published a hospitality and tourism rescue plan this week. The hospitality and tourism sector is the third-largest employer in the UK and Northern Ireland, creating one in six of all jobs and employing 6 million people, 3.2 million directly. The hospitality industry has lagged behind many other sectors in terms of good working practices, with average pay of just £8.84 per hour and more workers employed on zero-hours contracts than in any other sector. I urge all Members to look up Unite’s hospitality and tourism rescue plan, as it is an important document. The recommendations include extending the sector-specific job retention scheme for six months, adequate sick pay and routine testing for hospitality workers, and a call for the Government to work with Unite’s proposed hospitality commission to retrain workers who lose their jobs.
The Test and Trace system has been a national  disgrace. The Labour party’s analysis shows that the Government’s contact tracing is going backwards  across England, with just over half of contacts—57.7%— reached last week. In my region of the north-west,  more than 26,000 people were not contacted. I urge  the Government to give local communities additional resources to carry out door-to-door testing and contact tracing and to check in on people to ensure that they are  able to self-isolate in areas such as mine that face additional restrictions.
In the absence of any form of effective test and trace, frontline staff, including all key workers at hospitals, schools and local authorities, must be provided with access to personal protective equipment. I used to work as an industrial organiser for Unison North West and often went into hospitals and care homes to recruit union members. Sadly, care home residents and staff have suffered badly due to the mismanagement by the Department of Health and Social Care. Weekly testing of care home residents and staff is critical to saving lives, yet there have been repeated delays to the rolling out of testing, and care homes have waited days for their results. There are also serious concerns about vacancies in the care sector during the months ahead.
The Government must provide an immediate plan to better support care workers in all settings, including the 9 million unpaid carers across our country. That includes covid-19 test centres, which is why I have recently highlighted concerns that my constituents have raised about the lack of PPE at Tiviot Dale church test centre in my constituency. I have received a letter from a secondary school teacher, who informed me that the only protective measures in place were disposable face masks for staff and visitors, and that the manager had informed them that they did not need them. This is deeply concerning, given that a large number of staff were from an ethnic minority, who, as we know from the first wave of the pandemic, suffered disproportionately. Our test centres should be the first step towards controlling this disease, not hotbeds for its spread. I have written directly to the Health and Social Care Secretary on this issue, but I have yet to receive a response. It is simply not good enough, with Stockport and Greater Manchester facing sharp spikes in infection rates and cases rapidly spiralling out of control.
We are reaching a crisis point with the virus, and we badly need the Test and Trace system fixed and adequate support for all workers and businesses.

Kate Osborne: I pay tribute to the health and social care workers, education and childcare workers, those working in the food supply chain, local government, civil servants, utility workers, food bank workers and everyone in my constituency who is fighting in my constituency of Jarrow and across the country day in, day out in the fight against this virus.
I am sorry to say, however, that it seems to me that, on just about every measure, the Government are losing control and, sadly, we are going backwards in this fight. This lack of control has seen the Government resort to treating the north of England as some sort of sick  experiment this week. It is beyond belief that now, because London has moved into tier 2, the Chancellor has rejigged his support package and now gone some way in addressing what we in the north have been asking for for weeks. Previously, it fell on deaf ears. Why did it take London going into tier 2 for this to happen when areas like my constituency of Jarrow in the north-east have been in similar restrictions for many weeks? This has come far too late for some and is no consolation for those who have already been made redundant or for businesses that have already closed. Significant economic damage has already been done. The new support will help going forward, but we still need a bold strategy to level up our region to stop covid from further increasing existing inequalities.
Now let us have a look at the money wasted by this Government. We have seen £108 million for a PPE contract going to a firm that is best known for making sweets—it has certainly left a bitter taste in my mouth—and £12 billion for a private track-and-trace system that is now reaching fewer than 60% of close contexts. The only people benefiting are Dido Harding and her Tory mates. With the constant changes in guidelines and restrictions, we are going round in circles. The Government must listen to Labour’s call for a national two to three-week circuit breaker that will give us a chance to fix testing, protect our NHS, and save livelihoods.
Moreover, the Government’s new plans for the job support scheme are still not enough. People on low wages are already struggling, and today’s announcement still leaves many to fall through the cracks. It is still not as generous or as well targeted as others, like the German scheme, and other European countries extended their furlough schemes through to next year months ago, giving certainty and clarity—and those schemes are not dependent on tiers. We must remember that the cost of living in England is much higher than in our European counterparts. We have the highest rents in Europe and pay some of the highest bills for our gas and electricity, so receiving a fraction of what is an already low wage is pushing many further into poverty. Renters who are struggling financially can now, of course, be evicted.
The Government need to stop jumping from one announcement to another. Businesses need to be able to plan in order to survive, and the Government need to stop their haphazard approach. If the Government had had a clear plan from the start, then we would not be where we are now. The Government must change tack, as well as moving to a circuit breaker. They must ditch the proposed job support scheme and extend the 80% minimum furlough scheme across the country. The confusion in the Minister’s eyes says it all. The Government have lost control of the virus and lost control of the message, and they are now completely ignoring the scientific advice from SAGE. My constituents and those across the country deserve better.

Eleanor Laing: The last speaker from the Back Benches will be Greg Smith. I know that many Members who have waited to speak this afternoon will be disappointed, as quite a large number have not been called. I must point out that all the people who have not been called are those who have spoken many times in recent weeks. I am sure that a little arithmetic will show that with the number of Members there are, 650, and with the amount of time  that we have to debate every day, which is eight hours, it is actually not possible for most Members of Parliament to make more than one speech in a week or several speeches in a month. It is not possible and it is not normal.

Greg Smith: I rise to add my voice to those expressing the urgent need for the Government to develop a plan B in the event that the vaccine that we all hope and pray can be developed and come good does not in fact materialise. I am clear in my mind that if that vaccine is not forthcoming, and quickly, we simply cannot, as a country, go on much longer with the restrictions that we have.
Covid is of course an horrendous disease, and it is right that all reasonable steps are taken to quell its spread, but we must also look, as others have said, at the deprivation of liberty in all our daily lives. We must look at the impacts—despite the unprecedented and enormous support package the Chancellor has put in place—on jobs and livelihoods, particularly for those who have so far been unable to access support, on the health outcomes for those suffering with conditions other than covid, and on the long-term mental health challenges.
As I have reflected on this debate, I have read and re-read many of the emails that I received from my constituents about the impact of the restrictions—real life stories. In my examples, I will maintain the privacy of my constituents by not naming them. Mr W writes:
“At that time I felt the argument being made to flatten the curve and protect the NHS and save lives made sense…and within a matter of perhaps 3 months or so could return to normal and recover. That did not happen and the lockdown cost me my business, it cost me my relationship and worse of all it cost me my health.”
To be clear, Mr W lost his health not to coronavirus, but to a misdiagnosis of a deep vein thrombosis.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) on her work around maternity services during the pandemic—a cause highlighted by my constituent, Mrs S, whose husband has been denied access to join her at appointments, not least at the review meeting after an emergency scam following concerns of a heart complication in their unborn child. Mrs S writes:
“I can honestly say waiting for that review meeting with the consultant was the most agonising wait of my life. So much so, I entered the room in tears, unable to control my emotions…when all I needed was the support of my husband”.
What made it all the more complicated for Mrs S was that she could not understand why—in a room that contained a sonographer, the consultants, a midwife and herself—her husband could not be there, given that he works fully from home and does not even leave the house for a weekly shop. She concludes:
“I am sure there are multiple women who…have had to go through devastating news alone.”
I turn to Mrs K, whose son was so excited to go to Exeter University this year, but on arrival has been treated worse than a prisoner in his halls of residence, with sniffer dogs deployed on site to break up groups of students. The isolation of this experience has taken a serious toll on him, leading to him having to return home. I have not even got to the list of the many businesses that, if they have not already gone bust, face the prospect of doing so.
I seriously hope and pray that the vaccine comes good and we can get our lives back to normal. But if the vaccine does not come good, I urge the Minister to consider that serious plan B—thinking about how we learn to live with this virus, looking at work, including that of Dr Raghib Ali, and listening to other ways that we could move forward.

Rosena Allin-Khan: We have heard some superb speeches in this debate, but due to limited time, I cannot personally refer to them all. We have heard stories from every part of our nation, of the heroism of our NHS workers, of the stoicism and resolve of the British people, and of the tragedy and loss caused by this cruel disease. But there is something else too: a growing sense of frustration, a loss of confidence and a lack of trust in this Government; a feeling that decisions are guided by politics and public relations, not by science and evidence; and a sense that many sacrifices have been in vain, and that the current strategy has all the pain but so little gain.
We heard in Prime Minister’s questions yesterday that there is no clear route out of the tier 3 system if the R remains above 1. We have seen Ministers in broadcast studios squirm as they try to explain byzantine rules to an increasingly bewildered public. We have seen advisers flout the coronavirus rules while calling for stiffer penalties for the rest of us. We have heard the cries of anguish from hospitality and events, retail, the arts, aviation, small businesses, the wedding sector and 3 million freelancers excluded from any support. Job losses mounting; young people’s education in chaos; students treated like prisoners; a crisis in our care homes; people scared for their future; and, all the while, the number of infections rising, hospital admissions rising, the death toll rising.
The Government’s strategy is not working. Winter is coming and we all understand the pressure that winter places on our NHS. I know from serving on the NHS frontline that winter is the cruellest season, from slips to falls to flu to loneliness to hypothermia to respiratory diseases to depression and other mental health conditions triggered by these darkening days. Now we are piling on the huge pressures from covid-19. There is a real risk that, just as Ramadan as well as the Jewish high holidays were disrupted by covid restrictions, so too will Christmas be on the line. After this terrible year, people deserve to know whether they can spend Christmas with their families; whether they can hug their loved one in a care home for what may be their last Christmas. The Government have shown that they are willing to take free school meals from the mouths of children. Surely Ministers do not want to steal Christmas as well?
A harsh winter without respite will hit the nation’s mental health and it will hit it hard. I have heard from the Samaritans that many, many more young people are struggling. Self-harm among women has increased. Older people are isolated. University College London reported that after a month of lockdown, nearly a fifth of people had thoughts of self-harm and/or suicide. The charity Rethink says that 79% of people with an existing mental health condition have experienced it getting worse. Mind found that a quarter of people trying to access mental health services were simply unable to do so. Mental health services, especially child and adolescent mental health   services, were stretched to the limit before covid. Now they are being pushed over the edge. I hear every day from teachers in schools and desperate parents crying out for help from CAMHS, but who are unable to get on the waiting list and unable to get help. A new report out today highlights that one in six children have been identified as having probable mental health illness, increasing from one in nine in 2017. One in six children—that is staggering.
We know that covid is having a marked impact on our children and young people. We know the impact on people in abusive relationships. We have heard about the impact on cancer patients, on people with addictions, on people and families in prison, on people waiting for operations or diagnostic tests. We know the waiting times in A&E have increased nationally. The fact is that we are storing up a huge public health crisis that will last well beyond the last case of covid-19. NHS staff are exhausted. I have seen tears of desperation, of frustration, of rage, of exasperation and, now, of disappointment that the Government are not listening to frontline workers and their pleas.
Just today, the NHS absence rates for June were published. Alarmingly, 32% of all sickness absence in the NHS in June was for mental health reasons, up 3% from May. Mental health-related absences were three times higher than covid-related sickness at that time. Frontline workers have had to bury their colleagues. They have had to deliver the most painful of news and be the last point of call for so many of their patients. They are suffering immeasurably, so many of them, with post-traumatic stress disorder. All they are asking for is some timely help before it gets so unmanageable that they cannot manage their own lives and their families, and have to be off long-term sick. We owe them that at the very least. Every month, I highlight the growing absences and tell the Government that they should serve as a wake-up call, but clearly they just keep hitting snooze. We must ease the pressure, care for our carers and pay them properly.
The track and trace system is failing, so let us get rid of the private consultants and let the public health teams take over. The tier system is confusing, it is unfair and, seemingly, without a way out. It wrecks our national unity. The Government have been pitting Mayor against Mayor, business against business, region against region. It has to be fair. That is why the Labour party is calling for a national circuit breaker. As the Government’s own scientific advisers say, it would save up to 7,000 lives and halve admissions to hospital. Two to three weeks to curtail this disease, followed by the real prospect of a Christmas as close to normal as possible.
This House has heard many great clashes of ideology over the centuries, but this is not one of them. This is not the time to be playing politics with people’s lives or their livelihoods. This is the time to listen to science, reason and evidence, and to show humanity. There is no shame in the Government reversing their position, even at this late stage. There is no burn in a U-turn. I tell Ministers that the Opposition will support them, the nation will applaud them and history will judge them well if they announce a circuit breaker this afternoon. It is time to do the right thing.

Nadine Dorries: As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and others have made clear during this debate, although so much has been done to get this virus under control, the fight is not over. I thank all the Members who have spoken in this debate. It is clear that this pandemic has had a huge effect on everyone’s constituents, across the country. I wish to start by paying tribute to all the hard work of NHS workers, social care staff and volunteers throughout the pandemic. I also pay tribute to the British public for the sacrifices they have made to help us combat coronavirus and for observing the essential social distancing measures that have kept us all safe. Thanks to that hard work, we are able to protect the NHS, just as it is always there to protect us. As my right hon. Friend said, this has been an incredible national effort, and we are seeing the increasing effects of it today in the compliance with social distancing, particularly among young people, which is helping us very much to slow down the progression of the virus.
I wish briefly to outline to the House a few further areas to those set out by the Secretary of State where we have strengthened our response. I will go through these quickly because I want to answer some of the points raised today. We know that we have delivered more than 4.2 billion items of PPE since last February, and our adult social care winter plan, published in September, sets out the actions for the Government and every local care provider.
I want to get straight on to some of the points that have been raised, because some really important issues have been discussed today. I cannot mention everybody and every point, but some people will definitely be receiving a letter from me, particularly the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson). I will write to you and answer your points, because you are always very constructive in the way you ask for information and I will make sure you get that information. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) made the best speech I have ever heard you make in this House—

Eleanor Laing: Order. I am going to stop the Minister. I let her do it once; she called the hon. Member for Twickenham “you” and now she is calling the hon. Member for Rhondda “you”. Please call him “the hon. Gentleman”.

Nadine Dorries: I do apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker, it is because I have not been here very often lately.
The hon. Gentleman made one of the best speeches I have heard him make in this House, probably because he agreed with every word I have been saying—indeed, I almost ripped up this speech. I applaud him for some of the comments he made.

Chris Bryant: I will have to resign now!

Nadine Dorries: Possibly; the hon. Gentleman is in a very difficult position now. I say well done to him for taking apart the Great Barrington declaration. I will now not go into it, as he did an excellent job.
Turning to herd immunity, without a vaccine how do we attain herd immunity? With no knowledge of immunity from coronavirus, how do we obtain herd immunity? I will share with the House that I was diagnosed with  coronavirus on 7 March, I had a severe dose and my antibodies had disappeared 12 weeks later. I am no longer immune to coronavirus. That is not just my story; it is the story of many, many people. Many people who were donating their plasma post-coronavirus for convalescent therapy were told quite quickly, “We no longer need your plasma because you do not have any antibodies left.” Work is going on into immunity, and we have not reached a conclusive position yet, but I can speak from my own experience and from the experiences that we are hearing about, and if people do not have long-term antibodies and we have no vaccine, there is no such thing as herd immunity. I say that again because it is the truth.
On the comments about the measures we are putting in place, how restrictive they are and social distancing, all I can say—and this relates to the number of deaths in hospitals—is that back in March no one was wearing face coverings and no social distancing was being complied with by the public, and the rate of infection was doubling every three to four days. Now, it is doubling every seven to 14 days, because the public are wearing masks, they are hand washing and they are socially distancing, and that means that when someone contracts coronavirus, they contract a smaller viral load, which is enabling doctors to treat those patients once they reach an intensive care unit. In ICUs, people are now living, not dying, but we still need the ICUs and we still need the ICU beds in which to treat those people in order that they can live. The fundamental purpose of every measure we take is to protect the NHS and to keep those beds in ICUs, so that they are there to treat people and to keep people alive.
I described this to someone today who argued with me that face masks and coverings are unnecessary. If people are in the space of someone with no facemask—I will use a scale of one to 100—they will breathe in 100 droplets and a full viral load, but when someone has a mask on it is much less. This is not a scientific experiment; it is my own analogy, but the figure is probably 10. The hon. Member for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan) knows this much better than I do, and can confirm or deny it. Therefore, with a mask, people’s viral load is lower and it is far easier to treat them once they arrive in hospital at A&E and are transferred to an ICU, and there is a huge chance of success. That is what we are seeing in action now in our hospitals. If we all abandon our face coverings, stop social distancing and stop hand washing, we will be back to where we were in March, when the virus was doubling every three to four days.
My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) mentioned Sweden, but an article in The BMJ—a research study—concluded that Sweden and the US are the only two countries that are failing to reduce their numbers of deaths. In fact, it is far more accurate to compare Sweden with its Nordic neighbours. Sweden has 586 deaths per 1 million people, while its neighbour Norway has 279, so I am not quite sure why Sweden would be cited as a country of success.[Official Report, 24 November 2020, Vol. 684, c. 8MC.]

Christopher Chope: Will the Minister give way?

Nadine Dorries: No, there is no time—I am sorry—because I want to go on to what other Members have said.
I want to talk about mental health and just correct a few points, particularly on frontline workers. On the evidence we have at the moment, the two groups of people who are suffering with their mental health as a  result of this pandemic are those people who had pre-existing mental health conditions and frontline workers who are suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. For those frontline workers, a package was put in place straightaway by the NHS, which provided each frontline worker with three counselling sessions, numerous apps and the ability to have a contact and to receive immediate counselling, as well as a website where they could go through the tools used to work through their feelings. Almost every trust manager put in place a support package for frontline workers in their hospitals, and yesterday the NHS announced a further £15 million to support the mental health of frontline workers.
For those with pre-existing mental health conditions—and I would like to pay tribute to Claire Murdoch, who is responsible for mental health delivery in the NHS—trusts across the UK put in place 24-hour mental health crisis helplines in a matter of weeks, and they have had a huge impact. The Government have committed the £2.4 billion; we have accelerated the long-term plan; we have accelerated the trailblazer schemes in schools; we have introduced the wellbeing package in schools for children returning to school, and we have supported the third sector financially to deliver additional mental healthcare to almost every sector of society, including on eating disorders. I always say that is one of the worst mental health conditions because it has a high rate of morbidity, and it too has received additional funding. We have put a huge amount of work into mental health, and I know that Claire Murdoch and others are proud of what the NHS has done in terms of the mental health services that it has delivered.
I cannot answer anybody else, but I will write to people. This has been an important debate in the middle of one the greatest public health emergencies that this country has faced, and I would like to end by again thanking everyone across the country for playing their part to reduce the rate of transmission and to protect their loved ones and our local communities.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered covid-19.

Business without Debate

Proceedings during  the Pandemic (No. 5)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 9(6)),
That the Orders of 2 June (Proceedings during the pandemic (No. 2)), of 4 June (Virtual participation in proceedings during the pandemic), and of 23 September (Proxy Voting during the pandemic) shall have effect until 30 March 2021.—(David Duguid.)
Question agreed to.

Petition - Support for rugby league

Yvette Cooper: I rise to present a petition on behalf of residents of Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford calling for support for rugby league clubs during the covid crisis. The petition is signed by my constituents, and it also has the support of more than 1,300 people from  across our area—many of them strong Castleford Tigers supporters but also supporters of other rugby league clubs—who have shown their support online.
The petition calls on the Government to recognise the importance of rugby league to our towns, the role that Castleford Tigers and other clubs play supporting our community, families and people young and old, and the pressure that rugby league is under, as supporters cannot return to grounds but bills still need to be paid. The petitioners therefore request
“that the House of Commons urge the Government to recognise the importance of”
rugby league to our towns and to ensure that our important rugby league clubs get the support they need so they can keep supporting our communities through the covid crisis.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of the residents of the constituency of Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford,
Declares that Castleford Tigers rugby league club is at the heart of the town of Castleford, and supports the whole community, but is now under pressure; further declares that the rugby league faces financial difficulty as COVID-19 restrictions mean that supporters cannot go to the Jungle or other grounds but clubs still have outgoing bills to pay; and further declares that it is vital that the Government provides proper support for the rugby league over the course of the pandemic.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to recognise the importance of the rugby league to towns by ensuring that they get the support they need to survive the pandemic.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P002617]

Down Syndrome Awareness Month

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(David Duguid.)

Lisa Cameron: This is a particularly poignant debate for me to lead, as chair of the all-party parliamentary groups on disability and on inclusive entrepreneurship, which I will mention a bit more later. This year’s theme for Down Syndrome Awareness Month is “what holds me back”, which I will discuss, but I want also to speak about the real skills, abilities and potential of people with Down’s syndrome and why nothing should hold them back.
To begin, it would be appropriate to thank a number of organisations for their campaigning on Down’s syndrome inclusion and for their support in preparation for this debate and Down Syndrome Awareness Month. Those include Down’s Syndrome Scotland, the Down Syndrome Research Foundation UK, the Down’s Syndrome Association, Scope, Right To Life and Mencap, to mention but a few.

Elliot Colburn: Will the hon. Lady join me in also thanking organisations such as Get on Down’s in Carshalton and Wallington, and Lucienne Cooper, who has done incredible work to raise awareness of the needs of Down’s syndrome children in places such as Carshalton and Wallington?

Lisa Cameron: Absolutely. I thank the hon. Gentleman for mentioning those very important organisations and the work that they do. It is a credit to him that he has come to the debate to speak and to commend the work they have undertaken.
Every year in October, people across the UK and around the world mark Down Syndrome Awareness Month. Among other things, it is an opportunity to celebrate the achievements and contributions of people with Down’s syndrome to their local communities and to our society as a whole. I tabled an early-day motion on Down Syndrome Awareness Month just a few weeks ago, and I urge Members across the House to consider signing it if they have not already done so.
Today I hope to build on this work and take the opportunity to add some individual names and narratives that speak to the talents, passions, hopes and dreams of those living with Down’s syndrome in the UK today. These are people who have been in touch with me in my capacity as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for disability and have participated on a number of occasions in our recent online meetings, which I have been extremely pleased to host and which have brought me up to speed with modern technology, much to my delight.

Jim Shannon: I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing the debate. In my constituency, there are a number of groups that support those with Down’s syndrome and their families. Does she share my concern about the fact that the number of babies born with Down’s syndrome has dropped by 30% in NHS hospitals that have introduced new non-invasive pre-natal tests, which will soon be available free of charge nationwide? It is beginning to mirror the process that sees almost 100% of Down’s syndrome babies aborted, which is chilling to the core.

Lisa Cameron: I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that extremely important point. I do share his concern. I understand that, in England, the number of babies born with Down’s syndrome is down by about 30%. I was alerted today to an article in one of our Scottish papers, the Daily Record, about Stacey Corrigan, whose six-year-old son, Daniel Murray, has Down’s syndrome. She said:
“When many think of Downs Syndrome it’s most often with a negative outdated view”.
She also said that the language used by medical staff when speaking to parents-to-be is really important and should not be negative, and that parents should be given “balanced information and support”.
As I was saying, I want to build on the positivity and speak about people’s talents, passions, hopes and dreams. Their accounts are not uniform and follow no common narrative, but that is exactly the point. The richness and diversity of the Down’s syndrome community across the UK reflects the richness and diversity of society at large. However, all too often their lives and contributions have historically been medicalised or pigeon-holed into discussions about difference and limitations rather than talent, skills, ability and contribution. A more comprehensive and accurate narrative needs to be provided.
One baby in every 1,000 in the UK is born with Down’s syndrome, and there are approximately 40,000 people who have Down’s syndrome living in the UK today. Down’s syndrome was first described by an English physician, John Langdon Down, in 1862, and that then became the universally accepted descriptive term. It is a genetic condition occurring as a result of an extra chromosome—chromosome 21. People with Down’s syndrome can experience cognitive delays, but the effect is usually mild to moderate and is certainly not indicative of the many strengths and talents that each individual possesses.
People with Down’s syndrome have an increased risk of certain medical conditions such as congenital heart defects and respiratory and hearing problems, to name a few, but many of those conditions are treatable. Nowadays, most people with Down’s syndrome lead healthy lives.

Bob Stewart: I thank my friend, the hon. Lady, for giving way. My family had a child with Down’s syndrome when I was young, and unfortunately he died very young. Does she agree that modern medicine has extended the lives of people with Down’s syndrome so much that they live as long as anyone else—perhaps as long as me?

Lisa Cameron: I thankthe hon. Gentleman for all his excellent work in the House of Commons in so many ways, on this issue as well as on the armed forces. I totally agree with his point; in fact, I understand that life expectancy has increased dramatically in recent decades, from 25 years in the ’80s to 60 today. Medical science has advanced and people can live extremely healthy and long lives and be great contributors to our society.
Every person with Down’s syndrome is, of course, a unique individual. People with Down’s syndrome attend school, work, participate in decisions that affect them, have meaningful relationships, vote—which we should all remember to do—and contribute to society in many wonderful ways.

Rachael Maskell: I am grateful to the hon. Member for securing this debate, having worked with people with Down’s syndrome for many years. I put on the record my huge gratitude to the Once Seen theatre company in York, where people with Down’s syndrome act. Their acting is so powerful and so moving, because it is about life experience. Does she agree that we need to put on a platform so much of the talent that people with Down’s syndrome have?

Lisa Cameron: Absolutely. I am thankful for that intervention, which exemplifies our debate and the change in the narrative that all of us across this House wish to see. We should be promoting the excellent work of those individuals and groups with Down’s syndrome who are achieving so much in society.
Up About Down is a campaign run by the Windsor Essex Down Syndrome Association, a fantastic charity that has being raising awareness about Down’s syndrome through positive and accurate information since it was founded in 1990. It is all about changing the narrative surrounding Down’s syndrome; it is about looking beyond medical prognoses and seeing the individual stories and successes of individuals with Down’s syndrome who live happy and fulfilled lives and who are crucial contributors to local communities, economies and industries. It is absolutely in that spirit that I bring this debate before the House.
In 2019, an article was published that caught my eye, entitled “10 brilliant breakthroughs by people with Down Syndrome”. It highlighted Zack Gottsagen, a theatre major graduate of the Dreyfoos School of the Arts who starred in
“a modern Mark Twain style adventure story, The Peanut Butter Falcon, which tells the story of Zak…a young man with Down syndrome, who runs away from a residential nursing home to follow his dream of attending the professional wrestling school of his idol”.
The article also highlighted Heba Atef, who
“became the first-ever Egyptian flight attendant with Down syndrome to embark on a special flight from Cairo to Khartoum…the ‘Journey of Humanity’ took place under the sponsorship of the UN International Committee and was specifically tailored for people with special needs.”
The article notes that the Swindon Advertiser reports that
“a scaffolder living with Down’s syndrome was named Britain’s number one apprentice. His boss, the owner of Coles Scaffolding company Martyn Coles, said Todd had great determination. ‘He comes in every day and proves people wrong. Winning the award just shows he can do it.’”
Emmett Kyoshi, a teenage artist living with Down’s syndrome in Chicago, hosted his third art exhibition in 2019,
“showing the world that the extra chromosome he was born with is anything but a disability.”
Then there are Madeline Stuart—the world’s first catwalk model with Down’s syndrome—and Francesca Rausi, who have been credited for proving society’s perception of beauty wrong. They had the opportunity of walking at New York Fashion Week and meeting some of Hollywood’s biggest stars; again, they changed the narrative.
Closer to home, Positive about Down Syndrome told me about Tom, who lives in London and has two part-time jobs as a barman and catering assistant and is also an award-winning weightlifter; Bethany who works  for West Mercia police; and Hayley from Essex, who loves singing and acting and is part of a drama group performing at the London Palladium. These few accounts represent the stories of so many: those students with Down’s syndrome who are in college or university; those who have jobs and hobbies; those who are moving home, winning awards, falling in love, getting married and achieving great things.
For each of these stories, there are also children who have dreams and aspirations. I heard about Rebecca, who wants to perform on stage; Ben, who wants to be a postman; Jessica, who wants to be a pop star; Jack, who wants to play football for Nottingham Forest or Manchester United; Hollie, who wants to be a vet; James, who wants to be a police officer; and Samantha, who wants to be a make-up artist. I am sure that I speak for every parent when I say that we support and absolutely share in the dreams of our children every single day.
A sense of fulfilment and purpose that people with Down’s syndrome have from their work is a common thread connecting many of the accounts that I have mentioned. With that in mind, I draw particular attention to the work of the Down’s Syndrome Association and the importance of its WorkFit scheme. The WorkFit scheme was set up to train and assess employers who want to include those with Down’s syndrome in their workforce. All employers registered with WorkFit receive training, which includes their duties under the Equality Act 2010, and practical advice on how to make reasonable adjustments. The Down’s Syndrome Association is in constant dialogue with companies and organisations that have employees placed with them through WorkFit, to answer any queries they may have, and to work through any challenging situations. The programme was set up in December 2011, and to date it has placed 416 individuals with Down’s syndrome in a range of full-time, part-time and volunteer roles, as well as in adapted internships.
In recent weeks the Government announced the kickstart scheme, and I want to ask the Minister whether young people with learning disabilities, or disabilities, could perhaps be further supported through that scheme, or through an internship or apprenticeship. The excellent Speaker’s internship scheme for people with disabilities was developed in 2016, and perhaps there is more that hon. Members could do to support the training, inclusion, skilling and work of those who have Down’s syndrome.
I am delighted to chair the new all-party group for inclusive entrepreneurship, which was established to remove barriers and raise the profile of entrepreneurs with protected characteristics, particularly disabilities. We must also change the narrative more broadly from disability to ability, and from being solely about employees to people having the potential to become employers. Will the Minister consult colleagues in government, and find out whether there are particular supports and schemes for which those with disabilities can perhaps be given funding or additional support for adaptations, so that they can start their own businesses with their skills, talents and abilities?
A study by Mencap found that 62% of adults with learning disabilities in the UK want to work, although only 6% have a paid job. We need to address that, and we must all play our role in our constituencies, and by   working across the House and across parties, to ensure an inclusive employment programme for everyone across the UK. In this time of covid a recession could occur, and many jobs are already at risk. We would not wish one of the outcomes of covid to be a further tragic impact on those with disabilities.
Government mantras of “building back better” and “levelling up” can and should include people with disabilities and Down’s syndrome, making every aspect of society richly diverse and productive. I will conclude with a quote from a young lady, Kate Powell, which was provided to me by the Down’s Syndrome Association:
“Being a person with Down’s Syndrome makes me proud. I am a person to make a difference to a lot of people. That’s me. We may find things difficult, everyone does. We should tell people about Down’s Syndrome—the more people the better. Being a person with Down’s Syndrome I can do anything in life. We may need help to do the things we want to do in life. It is good to see people with Down’s Syndrome achieving their dreams. That’s my dream.”
That, Madam Deputy Speaker, should represent all our dreams.

Helen Whately: I would like to thank the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) for securing this debate on this important topic, and also for her work as chair of the all-party parliamentary disability group. Thanks to her, we are marking Down Syndrome Awareness Month here in the House with this debate today, and I am truly pleased that we have this opportunity to celebrate the brilliant contribution that people with Down’s syndrome make to our society, and also all the work of the many people and organisations who support those with Down’s syndrome to live their lives to the full.
Today, the hon. Member has outlined some fantastic stories about the achievements of people with Down’s syndrome, and also their hopes and dreams. I would like to share Michael’s story with the House. Michael has Down’s syndrome, a visual impairment and the muscle condition hypotonia. Despite his family being warned by doctors that he would probably need a wheelchair for the whole of his life, Michael has represented Wales and Great Britain in the Special Olympics and he has won more than 60 medals, which is an incredible achievement. He has not let the pandemic stop his plans. Earlier this month, he ran his first marathon in support of Mencap. He ran through rain, wind and mud to complete the virtual route around his local area in Wales. I want to take this opportunity to extend my congratulations to Michael on such an outstanding achievement.
While Michael’s achievements stand out as an inspiration to us all, I also want to celebrate the everyday achievements and contributions that people with Down’s syndrome make to their families and our communities, and the contribution they make to employment through participation and through love, friendship and laughter, enriching all our lives. That said, people with Down’s syndrome still face too many challenges and barriers. I want to see a society that works for everyone, where everyone can participate fully, feel included and be free to be themselves, so I want to talk briefly about some of the work we are doing to ensure that disabled people, including those with Down’s syndrome, are enabled to live full and rewarding lives.
First, in education, our ambition is for every child, no matter what challenges they face, to have access to a world-class education that sets them up for life, and that absolutely includes children and young people with Down’s syndrome. Supporting children, young people and adults with special educational needs is a particular need for us at this time, and our aim, even during the pandemic, is that education, health and care continue as far as possible, so that children and young people with SEND get the provision and support they need to fulfil their potential and achieve their ambitions.
The hon. Member spoke about work and employment in her excellent speech. We want everybody to have the opportunity to participate in meaningful and rewarding work and to gain the life skills and rewards that come from doing that. I am sure she knows from her work on the APPG that the Government have several programmes in place to support disabled people. An example is the Access to Work grant, which enables employers to buy personalised and tailored support to help disabled people to move into and retain employment. I should also say that, during the pandemic, Access to Work has particularly strengthened its support by making greater use of assistive technology and supporting the transport of assistive technology from workplaces to homes to enable more disabled people to work from home.
There is also the intensive personalised employment support programme, which helps disabled people with complex needs who want to work but require specialist support to do so, and the Disability Confident scheme, which supports employers to have the confidence to recruit and retain disabled people. However, I will take away the hon. Member’s question about what specific support is available through the kickstart scheme for people with disabilities, and also her point about particular schemes for those with disabilities to start their own businesses.
I also want to talk about health inequalities. We had a brief exchange about the improved life expectancy for people with disabilities, particularly those with Down’s syndrome, but despite the increase in life expectancy, there are still health inequalities facing those with Down’s syndrome and also those with learning disabilities. For instance, they are more likely to experience premature mortality. The recent Learning Disability Mortality Review report stated that the life expectancy gap for those with learning disabilities is 22 years for men and 27 years for women. That is absolutely not right.

Bob Stewart: When I was born in 1949, the life expectancy of someone with Down’s syndrome was 12 years. The life expectancy now, we hope, is somewhere in the 60s or 70s. I am sure the Minister will agree that we have to find a way to employ these people properly, and not just because, as some people would say, they are disabled; in my view, they are not.

Helen Whately: I completely agree with my hon. Friend. I do know that those with Down’s syndrome are in employment, but let us continue to support that as one of the rewarding things for everybody to experience in life. As he said, life expectancy has indeed improved enormously, but I am ambitious and determined that we go further and make sure that we reduce health inequalities for people with disabilities.

Rachael Maskell: I appreciate that this is a really sensitive topic, but we know that coming into the world is a real challenge for somebody with Down’s syndrome. Will the Minister go away and look again at the conversations that are had with parents who are diagnosed in pregnancy with somebody with Down’s syndrome and see how we can change that conversation, so that people can understand the positivity of bringing up a child and raising someone into adulthood with Down’s syndrome?

Helen Whately: The hon. Member makes a really important point. It is clearly a very difficult and sensitive topic, but it is absolutely the case that if, during pregnancy, any abnormality is detected or suspected there should at no stage be any bias towards abortion, which is what, as I understand it, she is referring to. I want to make that absolutely clear. It must be the case that all health and care staff involved in the care of a woman or a couple who might be considering the termination of a pregnancy must adopt a non-directive, non-judgmental and supportive approach. That absolutely should be the case throughout our health system. Should anyone experience anything different and find that that is not the case, they should raise it, because women and couples should be supported in a positive way so that they can make the right choice for them. I am choosing my words carefully given that this is a very sensitive topic.
While I have the opportunity, I want to talk briefly about the importance of the Oliver McGowan mandatory training in learning disability and autism, which the Government have committed to rolling out to make sure that all health and social care staff receive training in learning disabilities and autism. That is really important to make sure that people with those conditions get the right and appropriate care when they are in the health and care system, including, I should say, for end-of-life care, making sure that do not attempt CPR—cardiopulmonary resuscitation—orders are used appropriately.
In the light of the pandemic, one thing that has been raised with me, particularly for those who are caring for those with disabilities, is the importance of day services and respite services. I have been working really hard, including with the Social Care Institute for Excellence, on guidance to support the reopening of day services and to encourage local authorities to make sure that those are reopened.
To conclude before we are out of time, I am so glad that we have had this debate and been able to talk about the contribution that those with Down’s syndrome make to our society, and, to use a phrase from the excellent speech by the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow, to have made our contribution to changing the narrative. It is crucial that we should celebrate the achievements and contributions of those with Down’s syndrome to our society, so we have been and are taking action to support those with disabilities, including Down’s syndrome, but I believe that we can always do more and go further. So I say, let’s do that. Let’s do more and go further to support people with Down’s syndrome to achieve their dreams.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.